First Lawsuits Filed under Missouri's No-Spam Law

Struck down by the Appeals Court by Dancin_Santa · 2003-10-09 16:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

Sorry, interstate commerce is not controlled by the states. The law cannot and does not apply to spammers who work out of the jurisdiction of Missouri.

Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by codewritinfool · 2003-10-09 16:39 · Score: 3, Informative

This hasn't stopped Jay Nixon from suing many out-of-state telemarketers in violation of Missouri's "no-call" list - he's collected more than a million dollars so far.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Texas+Rose+on+Lava+L · 2003-10-09 16:44 · Score: 1

interstate commerce is not controlled by the states

I'm sure the Missouri highway patrol writes traffic tickets to long-haul truck drivers all the time. That's interstate commerce. Why shouldn't Missouri be able to go after spammers? Remember, they're breaking Missouri state law.

--
Rank Presidents by th
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Zaknafein500 · 2003-10-09 16:44 · Score: 1

Exactly. Nixon has been extremely successful collecting from telemarketers. It may not work, but at least it's something. Missouri is doing a lot more about spam than the feds are, that's for certain.

--

"The guide is definitive, reality is frequently inaccurate."
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Courageous · 2003-10-09 16:45 · Score: 3, Informative

I believe that it's been ruled somewhere that double ended transactions (such as a solicitation, originating in one state, and ending in another) can be said to have occurred in the destination.

Anyway, jurisdictional disputes are complicated. Your "does not and cannot" assertion is pretty thin.

C//
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by bgog · 2003-10-09 16:49 · Score: 1

Good point but in my opinion then 'entered' missori when they connected to missori mail servers to deliver the illegal mail. Virtual or not it is a tresspass onto assets in missori. I'm sure this isn't how the law works. Just an optinion.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 16:49 · Score: 1, Insightful

The states are not permitted to regulate interstate commerce including that which occur within the boundaries of the state. Within the state they are allowed to establish statewide laws, but these laws do not reach outside the boundaries of the state.

The MO no-call and spam laws violate the Constitution interstate commerce clause by reaching far beyond the boundaries of the state and into other states.

Also, it is not clear where exactly a recipient could be at the time of spam arrival. If I were a Missouran and traveled to Denver for business and while in Denver received spam, that is prosecutable under the MO law. There is no way to verify that the spam was actually received in MO. And even if it were traceable to within the MO borders, the law itself violates the interstate commerce clause and is invalidated by the U.S. Constitution.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by interiot · 2003-10-09 16:50 · Score: 1

What?? Isn't every interstate-commerce transaction a "double ended transaction", and clearly covered by federal (rather than state) law?
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 16:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

I would like to see all Spammers eat shit and die, but there is a problem with the Missery law that will most likely get it overturned.

Telemarketers can tell what state they are calling by the area code. But,in most cases spammers can't tell what state their Spammees are in.

The only way a spammer can be sure they never send spam to Missery is to never send spam anyplace. The law will be overturned.

If this law and Asscroft are typical of the legal system in Missery, they are in a world of hurt.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Unsolicited+Commando · 2003-10-09 16:57 · Score: 1

Sorry, interstate commerce is not controlled by the states. The law cannot and does not apply to spammers who work out of the jurisdiction of Missouri.
I don't think this is true. If you operate in one state and the effect of your operation is in another you exopose yourself to their laws. And yeah, interstate commerce may not be controlled by the states, but the letter of anti-spam laws may not be based on commerce regulation, rather interference with electronic communications.

--
Get revenge: Unsolicited Commando
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by macdaddy · 2003-10-09 17:01 · Score: 1

Complete and utter nonsense. The spammers are choosing to do business in the state of Missouri and are therefore bound to Missouri laws. If you don't know what the hell you're talking about then don't open your mouth.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 17:03 · Score: 0

They are choosing to do business on the Internet and have no control over whether their emails are retrieved in Missouri or some other state.

This law is clearly stepping into the rights of companies to do business in other states and is therefore in direct conflict with the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by user+no.+590291 · 2003-10-09 17:07 · Score: 1

And even if it were traceable to within the MO borders, the law itself violates the interstate commerce clause and is invalidated by the U.S. Constitution.
And we'll be happy to change the law, right after the spamming bastards fight it all the way to the Supreme Court and. What? They don't have the money to fight? What a damn shame. Maybe they can ask the EFF? Or set up a PayPal defense fund :).
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Unsolicited+Commando · 2003-10-09 17:08 · Score: 1

They are choosing to do business on the Internet and have no control over whether their emails are retrieved in Missouri or some other state.
The internet is not a place.... actually, there is this website with these awesome chicks on it... God, please let that be a real place.

--
Get revenge: Unsolicited Commando
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by user+no.+590291 · 2003-10-09 17:10 · Score: 1

I would like to see all Spammers eat shit and die, but there is a problem with the Missery law that will most likely get it overturned.
To get it overturned, they'll have to fight it in federal court. This will cost spammers money. So even if the law is overturned, the outcome is good.
BTW, busting on a state is really lame.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 17:12 · Score: 0

So you advocate barratry?

I hate spammers, but I would also like this Nixon character to rethink his enforcement of the law before he's disbarred.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by user+no.+590291 · 2003-10-09 17:14 · Score: 1

What barratry? Jay Nixon isn't threatening to sue, or suing just to harass--he's suing, using a law validly on the books.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 17:17 · Score: 0

The law is completely illegal within the framework of the U.S. Constitution.

The mere fact that he uses his website to taunt and harrass and threaten spammers is enough to be considered barratry.

So let's recap: He is threatening and harrassing legitimate businesses using a law that is clearly illegal within the framework of the U.S. system of government.

He is wrong for doing so, both morally and legally.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by user+no.+590291 · 2003-10-09 17:19 · Score: 2, Informative

He's doing his sworn duty as Attorney General to enforce the laws of the State of Missouri. If the law is overturned, and he later prosecutes, what you say would become true.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 18:09 · Score: 0

What does Missouri's anti-spam law have to do with interstate commerce? The spammers sent spam to Missouri and broke the law. If a traffic speeding camera snaps a picture of your out-of-state license, they can still nail your ass. Do you actually think that the Missouri Attorney General would have even filed the suit if the law only applied to Missourians or are you just trolling?
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 18:14 · Score: 0

Do you actually think that the Missouri Attorney General would have even filed the suit if the law only applied to Missourians

Considering the zealotry of the MO AG, yes, this action is fully expected.

That doesn't make the law Constitutional, though.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by ca1v1n · 2003-10-09 18:15 · Score: 1

If they're trying to do business with people located in Missouri, and they send commercial transmissions to people located in Missouri, they sure as hell fall under Missouri jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is a non-issue here.

--
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by 0x0d0a · 2003-10-09 18:21 · Score: 1

Hmm. I think I'll lob explosives into Missouri from Kansas. Surely Missouri will be powerless.

--
May we never see th
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 18:24 · Score: 0

If you were lobbing them into space and had no idea where they would land could MO enforce an anti-explosive law against you?

Nope.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by pi+eater · 2003-10-09 18:31 · Score: 0

i hope the spammers like the cold weather in canada.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Ramze · 2003-10-09 18:55 · Score: 1

A state law can apply to any person or business who conducts business within the state. Even if you are a supplier to a business in a state, you can often be considered "doing business" with the state if that business is a significant enough portion of your own business. It's quite common for businesses who are said to have business within the state -- regardless of where they are geographically located -- can be prosecuted under state laws when their actions affect businesses or individuals within the state. This is especially true for laws concerning contracts.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Ramze · 2003-10-09 19:15 · Score: 1

A state law can apply to any person or business who conducts business within the state in question. This individual or company is definitely doing business in Missouri by soliciting Missouri citizens via e-mail which puts the spammer under Missouri Jurisdiction. Simply because the Internet was used doesn't remove the business's obligation to ensure that they are adhering to state laws. In this case, it is up to the spammer to know which state the person they are spamming is from and what state and local laws apply.

If, for instance, they had called Missouri cell phone numbers instead and violated a state law, they could be held liable regardless of whether that Missouri citizen answered their cell phone in the state of Missouri (say they were on vacation in Florida for instance or Hawaii) b/c the phone was listed in Missouri.

State laws regarding this are very broad and have been upheld for a very long time. Even if you are a supplier to a business in a state, you can often be considered "doing business" within the state if that business is a significant enough portion of your own business. It's quite common for businesses who are said to have business within the state -- regardless of where they are geographically located -- to be forced to adhere to state laws when their actions affect businesses or individuals within the state.

This is especially true for laws concerning contracts.

While you are correct that states cannot regulate interstate commerce, they can and do regulate businesses within their state and those which do business with businesses and individuals within their state.

Usually states' interferance is only prevented when they cause significant harm to interstate commerce that is only travelling through the state such as trucks or trains carrying cargo. I recall, for instance, that trucks when riding through one state were required to actually change their mud flaps covering their tires several times to comply with different state laws regarding their shape and size. That was changed b/c it burdened interstate commerce & those state laws were struck down.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 19:22 · Score: 0

So what you're saying is that unless there is a no-spam list (ala the MO no-call list), then this law is unconstitutional because it effectively prevents the spammer from conducting business anywhere in the U.S. because the spammer has no idea where his recipient is.

There is no MO no-spam list, as far as can be discerned from reading the MOAGO website. Without such a list in place, spammers are completely hamstrung.

I'm not saying that I don't like the logical outcome, but I think that the law as it stands is wholly unconstitutional.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Animats · 2003-10-09 19:42 · Score: 2, Informative

Probably not.
The "commerce clause" says that Congress has the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes". But that's not an exclusive power. State regulation of commerce can clearly impact interstate commerce. State jurisdiction can thus overlap federal jurisdiction.
The way this works, after two centuries of dealing with grey areas, is that the states have power to act in an area where the states and the Federal Government share control unless and until Congress chooses to preempt state action in that area. Congress doesn't have to preempt, but it has that option.
Most, but not all, of the bills in Congress to regulate spam are written to preempt state law. If such a bill passes, the state laws become ineffective. But that hasn't happened so far.
Alternatively, Congress can choose to legislate in an area but not preempt state legislation. Most Federal criminal law is written that way. Bank robbery is a crime under both Federal and state law, and can be prosecuted in either court system.
There's an issue of how much activity a company has to have in a state before that state can regulate its activities. This comes up in litigation frequently. But when a company actively solicits business to residents of a state by directly communicating with them, that's usually considered enough to bring them under the state's jurisdiction.
Sending direct mail to residents of a state is generally considered to be "doing business" in that state. Spam would presumably be viewed similarly. The spammer might argue that they didn't know where the destination address was. That's been argued by a spammer in Pennsylvania. The judge didn't agree.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 19:44 · Score: 0

If this law and Asscroft are typical of the legal system in Missery, they are in a world of hurt.

Isn't Missouri the state whose citizens voted in a dead man, in preference to Ashcroft?
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by aed · 2003-10-09 21:55 · Score: 1

This will cost spammers money. So even if the law is overturned, the outcome is good.

And how exactly do you think these spammers are going to try to balance their budget?
(A small hint: I think it will have something to do with e-mail...)
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by volkris · 2003-10-09 22:27 · Score: 1

Just because the feds can regulate interstate commerce as well doesn't mean that the states can't.

The Floridians are out of the jurisdiction of the Missouri courts, but not because of restrictions on regulation of interstate commerce.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by user+no.+590291 · 2003-10-10 00:06 · Score: 1

There are only so many suckers who will buy generic viagra and penny stocks.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-10 00:14 · Score: 0

Yes. I was one of those who voted for Carnahan. If I had known then what I know now, I would have voted for Ashcroft, knowing that he would have done much less damage in the Senate than as AG.
~~~
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-10 00:57 · Score: 0
1. If you give the Utah state trooper a "gift", he'll say that your speed was "jest fine"
2. If he was moving fireworks from Illinois to Neveda, how did he get them back from the Illinois Highway Patrol after getting arrested? How was it he brought them in Nevada and was moving them from Illinois to Nevada? (Doing a return for being the wrong size?)
3. Sorry about your stepdad beating you - maybe this will help.
4. Since he is a redneck, he might want to check this out
5. With the grocery story strike, you can't buy SPAM in Missouri anyway.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by GooberToo · 2003-10-10 01:18 · Score: 1

But,in most cases spammers can't tell what state their Spammees are in.

That's simply not true. If they don't have a good idea who they are spamming, they shouldn't be spamming them. If they don't know their target, then they should not spam until they have a list of email addresses with locations attached. After all, if they don't know where people live, then chances are, they are committing other crimes, like spamming little Johnny about porn and drugs.

Not exactly a hard position to defend.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-10 01:32 · Score: 0

U.S. state courts can and do exercise jurisdiction on out-of-state companies all the time. We spend quite a bit of time in law school talking about this, actually, so it can be confusing. I have not worked in this area in a long time, but, if I remember correctly, a lot of it turns on whether it is forseeable that a state could exercise jurisdiction. Short answer: While I'd exepct a spammer to argue that Missouri does not have jurisdiction over them, that probably would not be a successful argument.

"Interstate commerce" in the way the parent post uses it has nothing to do with this. U.S. federal courts can only hear two kinds of cases: federal question (pertaining to a federal law) or diversity (more than one state is involved). "Interstate commerce" comes from the commerce clause of the Constitution, which is the way the federal government has expanded its power -- by making more stuff a federal question.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by ducomputergeek · 2003-10-10 02:56 · Score: 1

Jay Nixon, the Missouri AG, has sued several out of state companies for violating our no-call list. This seems to be a step out the same play book as the No-call list.
I could say "Its about time", but at least he is doing something about it. I have not been impressed with some of his politicing in the past, but might actully vote for him next time around if is does/can run again.
He's been our best AG since, dare I say the name around here, Ashcroft.

--
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by cayenne8 · 2003-10-10 03:40 · Score: 1

While I applaude the efforts to kill spam...I still don't understand how he can successfully sue/fine companies outside the borders of his state?!?!
Can someone explain how this is working? Just curious...

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Ramze · 2003-10-10 03:53 · Score: 1

I'm not sure where you get "unconstitutional" out of that. It doesn't prevent spammers from targeting anyone in the US. It simply means that they can't send e-mails to people that they aren't 100% sure where they are located. Instead of mining for e-mail addresses alone, they'd have to come up with a way to mine the person's name and address along with it -- or even citizenship of a particular state in case that individual merely works in one state, but resides in another. Simply because a law makes a type of business more difficult doesn't make it unconstitutional. Like any regulation on business, a business will have to comply -- usually causing them some time and effort.
It's not the state's fault that a spammer's business model relies on e-mailing strangers they have no data on other than their e-mail address. The spammers will have to resort to asking more questionairres and purchasing lists of names, addresses, and e-mail addresses to better comply with state laws.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-10 04:22 · Score: 0

"The Floridians are out of the jurisdiction of the Missouri courts, but not because of restrictions on regulation of interstate commerce. "

Wrong, wrong, and more wrong. Under Missouri's "Long Arm" Jurisdiction statute, doing business with someone in the state of Missouri makes you subject to MO long arm jurisduction....clearly these spammers fall under the long arm (contact based specific jurisdiction) statute....

Please keep silent when you don't know what you are talking about.

Sincerely,
A Real Missouri Lawyer
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by volkris · 2003-10-10 04:27 · Score: 1

My mistake, I should have been more clear.

I should have said "if the Floridians are out of jurisdiction...", as my intention was to say the poster was wrong in his charge of constitutional violation.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by M-G · 2003-10-10 10:25 · Score: 1

Excellent point. Of course, the question would then become who would be the AG...could have been someone a lot worse.

As for the 'voting for a dead man', technically it's true, but everyone was working on the basis that his wife was going to be appointed in his place. And even if they were going to prop the corpse up in the Senate, it would have been better than having Ashcroft there. Of course, for some reason everyone turned around two years later and voted Talent in....
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court by satyap · 2003-10-10 12:15 · Score: 1

Sure, (I am not a lawyer) it seems that *he*'s in his state, a crime was committed in his state, the criminals -- excuse me, "suspects" -- are in another state. BAM! Federal crime!

this won't stop much by jr87 · 2003-10-09 16:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is only gonna stop the dumb spammers who are easy to trace... soon they are gonna be up to their eyeballs in spammers who are a bit harder to trace.... I think also this could cause the vengefull spammer to start to really hit some of these guys....One more thing how do spammers know what boxes are in Missouri some sort of list? if it is I'm sure the spammers just love it

Re:this won't stop much by Reziac · 2003-10-10 04:07 · Score: 1

We're already up to our eyeballs in spammers that are hard to trace. ISTM the solution is to sue and/or prosecute companies that use spam as their primary means of advertising, AND *don't* adhere to reasonable rules of business conduct.

Using a hijacked or spoofed IP to send advertising, using forged or deceptive headers, etc, are not within said "reasonable rules".

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?

Let me guess... by Motherfucking+Shit · 2003-10-09 16:36 · Score: 1

Jay Nixon, Missouri's attorney general, has filed the first lawsuits under the new no-spam law against two Florida spammers.

Woodward and Bernstein?

--
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.

Re:Let me guess... by orthogonal · 2003-10-09 16:44 · Score: 1

Woodward and Bernstein?

From the article:
The first suit was filed against Phillip Nixon of Palm Beach, Fla.

Nixon sues Nixon?

One of them has got to be a crook!

And only one of them will be able to go to China.

(1337 script-kiddies who are victims of America's "educational" system: you download an explanation of these allusions from KaZaa)

--
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Re:Let me guess... by switched4OSX · 2003-10-09 16:49 · Score: 1

"Nixon sues Nixon?
One of them has got to be a crook!"

Yeah, it's too bad Nixon isn't still in the White House so he could grant a pardon to Nixon (or Nixon).
Re:Let me guess... by JamesP · 2003-10-09 23:20 · Score: 1

Thank god it's not Hugh Jass

--
how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?

MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 16:37 · Score: 0

I AGREE WITH THIS POST

Re:Fuck You Bitches by rodgster · 2003-10-09 16:38 · Score: 1

In the old days....

certain people in usenet would track down the email addresses of spammers and other unsavory people and post those email addresses in the groups so that spammers would in turn spam them.

fighting fire with fire.

--
Who will guard the guards?

He also said... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 16:44 · Score: 0

"God doesn't have lice" or something like that

Re:He also said... by rodgster · 2003-10-09 18:45 · Score: 1

wasn't it more like
god doesn't play dice.
in criticism of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

--
Who will guard the guards?

Great.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 16:45 · Score: 0

....so what am I going to eat for my supper now?

Re:Great.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 16:52 · Score: 0

Oh, the shit straight out of Taco's ass like usual.

Re:Fuck You Bitches by nsingapu · 2003-10-09 16:45 · Score: 1

In the old days an email address wasnt a disposible commodity.
There wern't people launching the equivelent of dictionary attacks against mail servers to see what does not bounce, and hence keeping an email address private involved sharing only with those who were trusted.
Today if I see such an attack at work I block the ip and fire up nessus. Fight fire with fire.

--
How do I keep track of people who are fingering

It's about time... by ScooterBill · 2003-10-09 16:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

The spam trade is possible because of one thing:

Sending millions of emails is extremely inexpensive and like the old adage "ask a million girls for a date and no matter how ugly you are, you'll probably get a few takers"

If it becomes expensive to spam, then the spam will stop and email advertising will become what it's good for, telling potential customers about products that they ARE interested in.

I can't wait for the California law to take effect. It's way more restrictive. I pity the spammers.

M

Re:It's about time... by Leeji · 2003-10-09 17:08 · Score: 1

like the old adage "ask a million girls for a date and no matter how ugly you are, you'll probably get a few takers"

This is an old adage? Where have I been all this time???? Not busy enough, I'd guess!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to design a highly-parallizable distributed date-asking beowulf cluster algorithm to statistically guarantee me the bottom feeders I would otherwise have missed!

--
It all goes downhill from first post ...
Re:It's about time... by orthogonal · 2003-10-09 17:13 · Score: 1

the old adage "ask a million girls for a date and no matter how ugly you are, you'll probably get a few takers"

Wasn't that adage disproved by Slashdotters?

Not even 1 girl in a million likes the smell of three-week old Dorito dusk on a man whose idea of a hot date is IM'ing each other over his home-built LAN in his mom's basement.

And Mr. Darwin days, "That's good!"

--
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 17:26 · Score: 0

Well, the Census Bureau says that there are roughly 292 million Americans right now. It's probably relatively safe to assume that this means there are about 146 million female Americans.

If only one in a million liked you, that would leave us with 146 such women. Surely some will be too young or too old to be a very good (or legal) match. But I bet there would be around 50 who were suitable.

That's not too bad.
Re:It's about time... by orthogonal · 2003-10-09 17:49 · Score: 1

Well, the Census Bureau....

So does this line of reasoning work well as a line a singles' bars?

"Baby, you're number 619,342 on my list. Are you one of my 146 women?"

"Lemme explain, see, according to the Census Bureau --hey, hey, where you goin' babe? Babe?"

--
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 17:50 · Score: 0

whores - you need to see some whores. they'll do pretty much whatever you ask them to (and you can probably find some who'll do other things you *dont* ask them to if you look hard enough) for some money.

which is much like a girlfriend - she'll fuck you, suck your cock, blah blah blah, if you take her to enough expensive restaurants, except with a whore, you dont need to remember anniversaries, or birthdays, or anything else that fucks things up when you forget them.
Re:It's about time... by Phroggy · 2003-10-09 18:16 · Score: 1

I pity the spammers.

I don't.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:It's about time... by User8201 · 2003-10-09 19:28 · Score: 1

I often think that if for each mail someone sends they have to perform a computationally expensive computation to "digitally sign" the message in a way specific to the recipient's address, then it will no longer be economical for spammers to send mail because if it takes them 100 milliseconds per spam sent, 10 million e-mails takes more than 240 hours.

After all, we all sign our messages when we write a letter, so why not insist the same for e-mails?

Alternately, if each SMTP server admininstrator agreed to add a 100 ms delay, per email it sends - and if the client disconnects before then it does not send the email, then we're in business.

Right now we're having a hell-of-a-time tracking spammers. That is why I think the digitally signing - which is computationally expensive - idea is the best solution.

Our client then contacts the server of the sender and asks them to confirm that the user in question really did send that email - sort of checking the signiture. This is connected with "return recipt requests" since it is a similiar concept.
Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 21:18 · Score: 0

A complex checksum (that cant be simplified) involving the address of the recepient and the message itself?
Re:It's about time... by fuzzybunny · 2003-10-09 23:19 · Score: 1

There are a lot of variations floating around on the signing theme, including some fairly decent ones that don't use idiot concepts such as internet postage or complete lack of privacy (maybe a checksumming mechanism involving an automated verification of the sending server, whatever. At least that would let you track open relays a bit better).

However, the 'delay' idea won't work--consider any large legitimate mailng ilst.

--
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
Re:It's about time... by Dark+Fire · 2003-10-10 02:14 · Score: 1

CPU cycles keep getting cheaper. I wouldn't bet on a solution like that helping for very long if at all.
Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-10 07:33 · Score: 0

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to design a highly-parallizable distributed date-asking beowulf cluster algorithm to statistically guarantee me the bottom feeders I would otherwise have missed!

hmmm... and you wonder why you don't get dates? j/k

Well that was tough by rune2 · 2003-10-09 16:50 · Score: 1

One of the lawsuit recipients even managed to spam an address maintained by the attorney general's office.

Maybe they should charge them with stupidity while they're at it.

Re:Well that was tough by CaptBubba · 2003-10-09 16:58 · Score: 1

THat would set a very dangerous precident. 90% of the people I see on a daily basis are blantantly guilty of stupidity...

Weak legislation by lewko · 2003-10-09 16:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

One of the main arguments against spam is that unlike 'conventional' paper-based junk-mail, the cost of spam is borne by the recipient, not the sender. This consists of the time taken to process the mail (be that reading and/or deleting it) as well as the cost in data transfer to download it.

Legislation mandating (as is the case here) that senders preface spam by adding "ADV: in the first four characters in the subject line or ADV: ADLT if it contains adult material" miss the point. The user has already paid for the download. If you multiply that small figure by the millions of spam emails sent it adds up considerably!

This is no better than allowing thieves to come into your home and steal your valuables as long as they wear a loud coloured shirt advising they are a burglar.

--
Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au

Re:Weak legislation by flux · 2003-10-09 17:05 · Score: 1

Obviously the next step would be to delete the messages on the server (can be done by the client using IMAP), and then again the next step would be to make email-servers stop receiving messages with the forementioned subject feature to receivers who have enabled the feature.
Recognizing spam at low cost is the first step.
Re:Weak legislation by Fnkmaster · 2003-10-09 17:21 · Score: 1

The bandwidth cost is negligible. The real cost is time and effort wasted wading through spam trying to find your real mail. I know, I can see you're from Australia, and you guys pay through the arsehole for bandwidth, but here in the rest of the world, we just don't want our time wasted - that's the real cost burden being placed on the recipient.

Every scheme I've seen to make the sending process "cost" something seems to correspondingly decrease the usefulness and convenience of email (though I do like the idea of using some sort of computational "postage" to make a separate class of "postage-paid" first-class-style emails to help distinguish personal communications from everything else). But mandating the tacking-on of ADV: substantially reduces my cost as a spam recipient in wading through all the gunk out there, training and configuring filters, and so on.
Re:Weak legislation by lewko · 2003-10-09 17:38 · Score: 1

You (or someone) have already paid to download it. Blocking something at your firewall or mail server is convenient however doesn't avoid you actually paying download charges.

--
Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
Re:Weak legislation by flux · 2003-10-09 17:40 · Score: 1

The mail server can stop receiving the message at the point it sees the subject of the message. More likely you are portscanned worth a few such spam-send-attempts a day. Noise really.
Re:Weak legislation by lewko · 2003-10-09 17:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

The bandwidth cost is negligible
For one or two emails, yes. Your answer is only referring to your personal experience with spam as a single email user. Now look at the bigger picture. You have never run an ISP though have you? Multipy the 'negligble cost' by tens of thousands of emails and it certainly DOES add up, no matter HOW little you are paying for bandwidth.
Consider that spammers may send your domain even millions of random emails e.g. aaa@yourdomain, aab@yourdomain etc. just to see which ones get through (i.e. don't bounce). Cost to them? Nothing. Cost to you? Plenty.
Even if you think this doesn't effect you, what happens when your ISP gets a major bandwidth bill? You end up paying for it.
The fact is, you should not have to pay for receiving someone's advertising yet you are, directly or not, and as such are being abused by the spammers whose activities require stronger legislation than this!

--
Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
Re:Weak legislation by Fnkmaster · 2003-10-09 18:00 · Score: 1

But the point still stands: on an aggregate basis, the bandwidth costs are still a heck of a lot smaller than the human capital costs, they are just incurred at a different point. The ISP doesn't see the thousands of users and the thousands of hours of wasted time directly, they just see thousands of megs of wasted bandwidth. So sure, to an ISP owner, it looks like the major cost is wasted bandwidth (and as you point out, in some cases it's the ISPs upstream bandwidth they have to pass along to their customers, in other cases, bandwidth their customers are paying for).

Nonetheless, that cost, on the whole, is still far lower than the wasted effort, aggregated across those thousands of customers, each of whom may waste 15-20 minutes a day sorting through spam.
Re:Weak legislation by Phroggy · 2003-10-09 18:21 · Score: 1

Legislation mandating (as is the case here) that senders preface spam by adding "ADV: in the first four characters in the subject line or ADV: ADLT if it contains adult material" miss the point.

This is a START. And it's a good start. They have limited resources. It's a good way to make it EASY for the state to prosecute violators. If ALL spam contained ADV: in the subject line, the situation would be better than it is now, even if there was twice as much of it. Once that's taken care of, THEN we can work on stopping the rest of it.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Weak legislation by Phroggy · 2003-10-09 18:47 · Score: 2, Informative

g IMAP), and then again the next step would be to make email-servers stop receiving messages with the forementioned subject feature to receivers who have enabled the feature.

The SMTP protocol does not allow this; once a mail server has agreed to accept a message, it MUST accept the ENTIRE message. The Subject header, like all other headers, is part of the same block of text as the message body. The receiving server can only reject the connection based on 1) the sender's IP address, 2) the HELO string, 3) the envelope from address, or 4) the envelope to address. Once it says OK to that, it must accept the rest of the message.

However, although requiring tagged subject lines will not decrease bandwidth usage, it will make filtering trivial, which will make it mostly pointless to send spam with tagged subject lines because nobody will even see it. This will discourage people from sending spam, which should decrease bandwidth usage.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Weak legislation by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 18:56 · Score: 0

in rep to: The user has already paid for the download.

Perhaps we could charge are telecom companies for the money we have spend.
Re:Weak legislation by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 21:27 · Score: 0

Well, depends. You could then have an equivalent of your "Do not call" directory.

I add my address to a "I don't want ADV:" directory. My ISP is notified and I don't receive any emails that start with "ADV:".

Because they're removed by the anti-spam software on the ISP, I never download them, and they never waste my time.

I agree - it's very weak, but it could have an effect. The main problem is the fragmented nature of these laws.
Re:Weak legislation by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 21:29 · Score: 0

And speaking of paper-based junk mail: Why is that allowed to exist anyway? I am sure fed up with it just as much as with the electronic Spam.

IMO ALL advertisement should be opt-in. This has to be made mandatory. If I receive unwanted advertisements, like a flyer in my mail box or a viagra spam in my inbox, it should carry an automatic prison sentence for the sender and confiscation of all their assets.

Yeah, I am really fed up with all this junk mail. I know it's beginning to radicalize me. If someone would propose the death penalty for spammers, he surely would get MY vote.
Re:Weak legislation by volkris · 2003-10-09 22:31 · Score: 1

SMTP has the ability to generate an error after the receipt of the data.

Just throw a "resource unavailable". After all, the nospam policy makes the resource unavailable.
Re:Weak legislation by Trejkaz · 2003-10-09 22:45 · Score: 1

Time is a lot more valuable than bandwidth.

If a spam wastes a minute of someone's time and that person considers their time to be worth $20/hour (less than many I'm guessing,) then it's about 30c of time. An email would cost nowhere near that much in bandwidth, and SpamAssassin could bump the score on these emails +10 straight away, removing most of the cost.

--
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Re:Weak legislation by DirkDaring · 2003-10-10 00:34 · Score: 1

Yeah because obviously ISPs don't spend any time or money setting up filters and blocks and reporting tools and information pages for the customers and reports to execs etc etc. Go ask AOL or Verizon or SBC or Adelphia or USWest etc etc how mnay thousands of hours they have spend to combat spam.
Re:Weak legislation by alienw · 2003-10-10 00:47 · Score: 1

The SMTP protocol does not allow this; once a mail server has agreed to accept a message, it MUST accept the ENTIRE message.

In that case, how can an SMTP server refuse large attachments like many of them do?
Re:Weak legislation by Sigma+7 · 2003-10-10 01:49 · Score: 1

The bandwidth cost is negligible. The real cost is time and effort wasted wading through spam trying to find your real mail.
Wrong. The real cost to the user is having messages bounced from your primary e-mail/webmail account because your mailbox is filled spam, including the various 140KB worms.

The real cost is also the fact that CyberSitter blocks access to your entire mailbox, just because it contains the word "<censored>". (Why wouldn't it? It's from the same company that blocks random sites such as http://www.peacefire.org/)

And that's not including the real cost assigned to ISPs...
Re:Weak legislation by 42forty-two42 · 2003-10-10 03:01 · Score: 1

It can, but the send may be retried several times. Plus the sender might send a few kilobytes of data before it gets the RST or FIN packet(s). The only way to stop it is to wait, or return a 5xx error code - and if you close the connection early, the 5xx might be ignored.
Re:Weak legislation by 42forty-two42 · 2003-10-10 03:10 · Score: 1

Either the ESMTP SIZE extension, which rejects either at the sender (maximum size is reported), or after the MAIL FROM: SIZE=nnn, or after the message is received (discard it, send a 5xx after the '.')

Don't Bother Me. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 16:53 · Score: 0

My Johnson is Big enouph.

Much larger than CowboyNeil.

What it means... by BrokenHalo · 2003-10-09 16:55 · Score: 1

is simply that they'll send more spam to non-US addresses. A year ago, my spam statistics used to indicate ~95% of spam originated from the US, with the remainder from .jp, .kr and .ru.

Now the spam I get originating from the US is 99.8% of the total.

Article Text by mlarios · 2003-10-09 16:59 · Score: 0, Redundant

Nixon files first suits under state's No Spam law

Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon has filed the first two lawsuits using the new state anti-spam law against a Florida man and Fundetective.com of Boca Raton, Fla.

Nixon said the defendents violated the state law, which went into effect Aug. 28, by sending spam to Missouri e-mail accounts without the required labeling, and by sending spam to those accounts after being asked to stop. Under the law, spam must be labeled with the phrase ADV: in the first four characters in the subject line or ADV: ADLT if it contains adult material.

The first suit was filed against Phillip Nixon of Palm Beach, Fla., who allegedly sent at least five unsolicited commercial e-mails to an address maintained by the Attorney General's office, nospam@moago.org. The messages were not labeled as required and did not stop even after being directed to stop.

The second suit was filed against Fundetective.com, which sent spam messages advertising payday loans and other services. The messages were not labeled as required.

In the suit, Nixon is asking the St. Louis City Circuit Court to issue injunctions to prevent the defendants from further violating the law, and civil penalties of up to $5,000 for each violation.

Kansas by macdaddy · 2003-10-09 17:03 · Score: 1

Along the same lines I read where a Kansas City man used Kansas's couple year old spam law (SB 467) in court and won. I've been meaning to contact the gentlemen and seek his advice. I want to do the same thing myself soon.

Re:Kansas by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 17:36 · Score: 0

Don't email this guy, I did and he sued me for 5,000$ for unsolicited email.

That's a bright one... by SWad · 2003-10-09 17:13 · Score: 1

"..One of the lawsuit recipients even managed to spam an address maintained by the attorney general's office."

Nothing like telling the farmer you are gonna sleep with his daughter.

Re:That's a bright one... by SCHecklerX · 2003-10-10 02:45 · Score: 1

Even more hilarious is that the address sent to was 'nospam@moago.org'

I hope this worked. by Mustang+Matt · 2003-10-09 17:33 · Score: 1

I worked with MO State Rep. Carl Bearden quite a bit to get the original legislation in place which was shot down until they came up with the current revision.

I'm really glad to see that the AGO is attempting to shut them down. This is a HUGE success! I was very worried that they wouldn't have the enforcement power to even attempt to put a stop to this.

--
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin

It's too bad California is being so specific. by caferace · 2003-10-09 17:34 · Score: 4, Informative

The volume of spam I get is somewhere in the neighborhood of 200+ a day. Granted, it's (nearly) all properly sorted and filtered with a combo of SA and Moz' filters. But... In order to report it to the Calif. AG, it has to adhere to the following guidelines:

"1. You are the recipient of the spam and you are a resident of California.

2. The spam was delivered via servers located in California (sender's, recipient's or intermediary server will suffice).

3. There is some indication that the spammer is operating in California, such as a California telephone number or address for orders. If you can identify the spammer and have information from other sources showing that the spammer is in California, that will also work.

4. The spam fails to comply with the statutory restrictions. To comply, the unsolicited advertising emails' subject line must begin with "ADV:", the first text in the message must offer a toll-free number or functioning email address for removal of the recipient from further unsolicited emails, and that statement must be in a type size as large as most of the other text.

1,2 and 4 are pretty easy. Proving 3 can be a real PITA, and means if I really want to work this hard I have to do a lot of legwork. Granted, the end result may be worth it, but...

ref: http://caag.state.ca.us/spam/index.htm

Re:It's too bad California is being so specific. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 17:38 · Score: 0

The Cali law is obviously legal because it only pertains to communications originating and ending in California.

The MO law purports to pertain to any spam delivered to a server in MO. This is where it violates the Constitutional ICC.
Re:It's too bad California is being so specific. by mcrbids · 2003-10-09 19:07 · Score: 1

3. There is some indication that the spammer is operating in California, such as a California telephone number or address for orders. If you can identify the spammer and have information from other sources showing that the spammer is in California, that will also work.
--SNIP--
1,2 and 4 are pretty easy. Proving 3 can be a real PITA, and means if I really want to work this hard I have to do a lot of legwork. Granted, the end result may be worth it, but...

3 can be obtained by a simple whois. Reverse track the relay servers, the website, do a whois on domain names of sending servers and you have this condition met.

All it takes in 1 spam meeting these conditions to make the law effective. Any spammer anywhere in California.

--
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Re:It's too bad California is being so specific. by ortholattice · 2003-10-09 22:36 · Score: 2, Funny

3 can be obtained by a simple whois. Reverse track the relay servers, the website, do a whois on domain names of sending servers and you have this condition met.
Ah, do I hear the wheels of progress already working on the next Mozilla extension? Imagine gleefully watching the California ones carefully plucked out of your Junk folder, optionally with PDF files of the necessary court papers ready to print and file.

What commerce? by raehl · 2003-10-09 17:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sending fraudulent email is hardly "interstate commerce". The principle you're referring to does things like prevent states from charging tarrifs or preventing goods from travelling through their state from one state to another. It doesn't mean states can't, say, require commercial driver's licenses for truck drivers, or prohibit you from stealing bandwidth.

--
paintball

Here's the MO AGO information by Mustang+Matt · 2003-10-09 17:48 · Score: 1

http://www.moago.org/nospam/nospam.htm

--
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin

Re:Here's the MO AGO information by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 19:30 · Score: 0

Please mod parent up as this is an interesting chronicle of the events leading to what is being used for the current case.

Be careful in your zest to zap spammers by kfg · 2003-10-09 17:49 · Score: 1

that you don't advocate and support laws just as vile and misshappen as the DMCA.

They could come back to zap you.

A bad law is still bad law, even if it at some time accomplishes something you desire.

Let's be careful and try to get it right.

KFG

Re:Be careful in your zest to zap spammers by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 19:05 · Score: 0

shut the fuck up!
Re:Be careful in your zest to zap spammers by volkris · 2003-10-09 22:35 · Score: 1

Amen.

In the overzealous quest to get even with those spammers who, it would seem, dissed their collective mother, the slashdot crowd is demanding that a very dangerous precident be set.

There's really no difference between this law and one that prevents a class of people from accessing any publicly accessable webpage.
Re:Be careful in your zest to zap spammers by Reziac · 2003-10-10 04:23 · Score: 1

"Right", in my view, would be "you can send any mail you want, so long as it's not fraudulent". Where fraudulent includes forged headers (but not stuff like anonymous remailers).

That alone would get rid of 90% of the spam I see.

What ticks me off isn't spam per se, but when I get 50 copies a day of the SAME 50k-HTML-bloated spam. If they'd just send one or two a month, that would be a lot more reasonable!!

Whereas I don't mind the ones that only come once in a while, are plaintext, from a real server, and are for an honest product.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?

KATE FABER = KOBE BRYANT ACCUSER by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 18:02 · Score: 0

I actually think Kobe is guilty and really see no reason for the woman's name to be out there. What pisses me off is that the corp. media can decide something won't be public knowledge and it isn't. They should not have that kind of power.

Uhmmm.. by Chordonblue · 2003-10-09 18:10 · Score: 1

So.. The State Attorney (Nixon), is sueing this guy in Florida also named Nixon. Should I be confused now? Is this for real? What are the chances if it is? :P

--
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."

Re:Fuck You Bitches by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 18:13 · Score: 0

Still happens, albeit in a somewhat different fashion. Check out http://aardvark.co.nz/email.htm.

As a St Louis resident... by 222 · 2003-10-09 18:20 · Score: 1

Spammers are liable for $5000 per email, so thats going to cost them...
[pinky to lips] one meeeelllion dollarrs.
for my hotmail inbox this morning. Now all we need is a means to actually track spammers....

Re:As a St Louis resident... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 18:46 · Score: 0

I think the Mo AGO has money to create a paper trail to buy things from spammers and track them down.
Re:As a St Louis resident... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 21:30 · Score: 0

Now all we need is a means to actually track spammers
How about a radio transmitter implanted under the skin?
Re:As a St Louis resident... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-10 01:55 · Score: 0

Seriously... if you get so close to a spammer so you can implant a transmitter, why not implant a lethal injection instead and be done with it?

Follow the money by MacFury · 2003-10-09 18:24 · Score: 1

SPAM is designed to sell you a product or service. In order to pay someone, you have to know, atleast approximately, who they are.

Just follow the money.

It won't stop out of state spammers, but anyone in Missouri (my home state) would be a damn fool to not follow the law.

Re:Follow the money by EddWo · 2003-10-09 21:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Not always. Sometimes it is just a way of creating lists of valid email addresses that they can sell on to other spammers.
I expect a lot of these penis enlargement things do not even exist. It is just used to check which mails bounce and which are actually read. Using an embeded image with a special URL.
They can make more money selling your email address to someone else than they can from selling you a product or service.

--
"Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
Re:Follow the money by JuggleGeek · 2003-10-10 06:33 · Score: 1

They can make more money selling your email address to someone else than they can from selling you a product or service
I doubt it. They sell a million email addresses for very little money. That makes an individual address worth *very* little - fractions of a cent. Compare that to one sale for $29.95, and I think it's clear that they make more when you're dumb enough to buy their product/service. Moreover, a list of email addresses from people who have been stupid enough to buy from spam before is probably worth a lot more money than just any old address that they can show will accept delivery.

Please mod up parent by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 18:31 · Score: 0

pseudo-mod "+1 Ha Ha Only Serious"

At least *one* part of the job is easy. by dbc · 2003-10-09 18:44 · Score: 2, Funny

One of the lawsuit recipients even managed to spam an address maintained by the attorney general's office.

This is surprising, why, exactly? Like spammers think: "Oh, this address is a government office, better delete it from my list."

The AG has gotta love this... J. Random Prosecutor thinks: "Now, let's see, so many spammers, which ones should I prioritize most highly for investigation today? Just let me make a quick check of my in box....."

Re:At least *one* part of the job is easy. by TheLoneDanger · 2003-10-09 20:06 · Score: 1

I'll bet that the AG office of Missouri has a sense of humour. Do you think moago.org sounds like a government site?

moago... hehehe...

--

"But I trust in the people's capacity for reflection, rage and rebellion." -Oscar Olivera

Good analysis of the trolls by Eric+Ass+Raymond · 2003-10-09 19:00 · Score: 1

Hey, that was a good troll analysis. I liked the bit about "hit and run" and "engagement" trolls.

Do you have the original text somewhere?

--
BOO! TERRO

Lots of talk about requirements here... by khenson · 2003-10-09 19:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

I had a conversation today about legislative requirements to mark spam as an advertisement. Invariably the subject arose concerning utilization of compromised computers making enforcement of any anti-spam law rather difficult.

I have a thought about that... We are permitted to own vehicles which participate on various public transportation infrastructure facilities such as state roads, the interstate system, etc. We are required to ensure the road-worthiness of the vehicle we own. We are required (more or less in differing states) to ensure our vehicle meets certain emission control requirements as well. Why then is it a leap to imagine that we must ensure (to the best of our ability) that our computers are kept up to date to prevent them from becoming criminal tools. I understand that we can't all be liable for the repercussion of the latest hack. I even understand that some people aren't as tech savvy as others just like I understand I am not a mechanic but it is my responsibility to ensure the tires on my car are securely fastened before using it to participate on a public roadway. If I don't know how to tighten lug nuts there are mechanics who can help me ensure my vehicle is safe. There are technical types who can help the "computer clueless" batten down the hatches a bit.

For example, I think if there is currently a computer out there that is STILL a nimda or code-red shit pump the owner of the computer should share some level of negligent liability, criminal or civil. If you are going to connect your computer to the internet then you need to take some responsibility for that action. For too long we just let anyone connect to the net any way they like. Let's tighten up the ship a bit...

Re:Lots of talk about requirements here... by volkris · 2003-10-09 22:39 · Score: 1

Oh, I think people should be held responsible for stuff that their computers do even if they are up to date on all patches.

A computer can only do what its operator tells it to do. If a bad man on the internet takes control and uses it for a bad purpose, it's only because the operator has told it to allow him control.

What, you fear you have lousy software that will get you in trouble? You better start demanding a guarantee that the software won't hand control over to strangers.

And once companies are having to give these guarantees they just might finally put out software of decent quality. While they're fixing all of their security faults they just might fix stability fault while they're at it.
Re:Lots of talk about requirements here... by DirkDaring · 2003-10-10 00:27 · Score: 1

Don't overlook the reason we must keep our cars up to date - safety. An unsafe car can kill. You honestly can't say the same thing about a personal computer.
Re:Lots of talk about requirements here... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-10 05:07 · Score: 0

Computers are viewed as appliances by many people. They don't require a license for your television.

It's unlikely any license, registration, etc will ever be required by law.
Re:Lots of talk about requirements here... by OaXlin · 2003-10-10 06:06 · Score: 0

Hmm I find your statement completely false.

1) Most new cars have computers in them, if the computer fails, it could kill you.
2) Planes and trains are run by computers... if they fail, you could die...
3) On the other end of the spectrum, missles are computer guided... hmm they kill too.

If you don't think this has anything to do with your personal computer... Well, the person hacking into your computer might.

--
sig. "I didn't do it."
Re:Lots of talk about requirements here... by M-G · 2003-10-10 10:36 · Score: 1

An unsafe car can kill. You honestly can't say the same thing about a personal computer.

Maybe not directly, and maybe not about a system hijacked soley for spam. But we saw numerous instances of the latest worms causing enough network congestion to cause problems at some power plants and railroads.

Missouri Regulates Interstate Commerce? by Tomorrowist · 2003-10-09 19:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

While I am not a lawyer, this strikes me as an attempt by Missouri to regulate interstate commerce. This was one of the few things that the federal government was initially designed to do. Missouri is not supposed to regulate commerce between residents of Missouri and residents of Florida.

I could live with this law being struck down only to see it replaced with a similar federal law. Spam is a global problem that deserves a global, not local, solution; for now, the best we can get is a national solution. Having one federal law will keep it easy for honest emailers to stay legal while outlawing spam.

--
Trolling for karma since 2003.

OOPS Re:Missouri Regulates Interstate Commerce? by Tomorrowist · 2003-10-09 19:50 · Score: 1

Please excuse me as I franticly search for way to delete the parent post or at least modify it and attach it to the above discussion about interstate commerce.

Sigh.

--
Trolling for karma since 2003.

Thick Skulls by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 19:51 · Score: 0

I welcome much more mass-media attention on the subject because eventually a critical mass will be achieved.

Only then will spammers be properly assigned (and publicly viewed as) their deserved status in society as being slightly above child-molesters and smokers. Or SCO.

In The Meantime, the Spammers are FIGHTING BACK! by Illbay · 2003-10-09 22:25 · Score: 1

HERE is something to make us all tremble for the future!

--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

Re:Fuck You Bitches by Trejkaz · 2003-10-09 22:43 · Score: 1

If dictionary attacks are so common, why hasn't anyone implemented detection into the mail server itself, so when it receives a few emails in alphabetical order, it can stop?

A variant of this worked for Hotmail in the days before their automatic spam filtering. Any email with a few guys' names either side of mine on the recipient list, delete.

--
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!

Give us laws that allow us to block spam by weave · 2003-10-09 23:28 · Score: 1

I hear a lot in here about people afraid that anti-spam laws will go overboard.

How about laws that protect anti-spam activities? Laws to protect places like spamcop and spamhaus from lawsuit threats? Eliminate those bogus threats to sue for infringing on a spammers free speech.

A person should have the right not to receive e-mails. A site operator should have the right to block spam and protect their systems or to netblock out whoever they choose (if customers don't like it, they can go to an ISP that doesn't care). An ISP should have the right to TOS a spammer out. A network operator should have the right to shut down spammers without fear of frivilous lawsuits. Murdering spammers should be legalized, as a self-defensive measure.

OK, maybe that last one is a bit over the top! :)

Then there are the various trade practices laws that should be enforced or beefed up. If a spammer is advertising a commercial product, then advertising standards should be set and enforced, including valid identification information and reply address information, as well as scrutiny over claims. There are many (US) laws to control commercial speech, like the Lanham Act. This isn't the same as laws that might infringe on non-commercial speech, anonymous speech, etc. (This won't stop begging spam, but I'll at least not have to worry about ads for Vicodin, Xanax, and Viagra)

Also, have you noticed that even though a few locales spam laws specify a subject must begin with ADV: they often munge that trying to meet the "spirit" of that law but get around filters, like (ADV) or ADV at end of line or A*D*V or A D V -- etc etc... Laws have to be specific with penalties for trying to get around them...

Re: Spammers and the Constitution by ConstCommittee · 2003-10-10 01:45 · Score: 1

I see so much drivel about SPAM that it is ridiculous. If anyone ever studied the U.S. Constitution they would know that the ONLY right to privacy guaranteed is from GOVERNMENTAL intrusion into private lives. Our founders, albeit out of personal interest, set up many guidelines to prevent government from interfering with commerce (one of the primary reasons for the American Revolution). Entrepreneurs will always use the most cost effective means to market, and that means introducing their product or service to as many people as possible. This has been true throughout history. Due to unconstitutional no-call and no spam laws, marketers are already finding other means to communicate which will be MUCH more prevalent that a few "spams" in your mailbox and circumvent these issues. Just to circumvent any ignorant responses regarding regulating commerce, note that Congress cannot legally perform ANY activites outside of those listed in Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution, and all State Constitutions are required to stay in the same guidelines.

Missouri slick law. by Dark+Fire · 2003-10-10 02:30 · Score: 1

The approach most anti-spam laws take is that you receive spam you don't want, you contact the spammer saying you don't want it anymore, the spammer sends it again and you can sue. Given all the spam people get, that places a big burden on individuals in terms of time/money (money for legal costs) since a spammer may or may not comply and you have to keep track of who is complying and who isn't which would take a lot of your time.

The Missouri law has an interesting twist. They force spammers to label the spam in the subject with a standard prefix. If a spammer spams you without the prefix, you can sue. You don't need to contact the spammer before you can sue them. And the spammer has given you conclusive proof of his crime. So the time factor drops out of the equation and you can proceed with the lawsuit right away. If you get an unlabeled email, bam, you can sue. Now think about this, what if every state adopted such a law but with different prefixes for every state.

For Missouri:

MOADV:
MOADLT:

For Ohio:
OHADV:
OHADLT:

etc...

People getting spammed would get instant evidence for a lawsuit ($$$) and it would make it almost impossible for spammers to send non-complying spam without opening themselves up to lawsuits. You could pay your way through college with the money collected! And if you don't want to bother, just setup a nice filter on your inbox to block subject containing (**ADV:, **ADLT:).

I could see spammers using offshore resources to spam which could give them a nice way to skate out of liability. In those cases, I would have the FTC put regulations on spam advertising such that if you receive a spam advertising a company's product or service that isn't labeled as required, the company can be held liable.

More regulations like the above sometimes makes things worse or has unforseen consequences, but one can dream.

Re:Fuck You Bitches by Excelsior · 2003-10-10 04:09 · Score: 1

The Apache James mail server contacts known-spam services and bounces spam. My spam problems have nearly gone away since I began using it. It is quite effective, and much cleaner than a client-side filter.

NO CALL LIST should equal NO SPAM LIST by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-10 04:23 · Score: 0

Add Onto the No Call List - No Spam too !

Wouldn't it be nice to actually use your computer, your email, and telephone without being interrupted ?!

NO CALLS = NO SPAM

The law has to be made to maintain the useful nature of this technology,
otherwise the world ends up in a glut of automated messages from noone - to everyone!

Email Address vs. Physical Address by billstewart · 2003-10-10 12:11 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but you are *way* wrong about that. The only way to make that happen is to force people to reveal their physical address in order to have an email address, and that's not only a severe privacy violation from the governmental-action side (and therefore something that the government would be happy to require :-), it's also a severe privacy violation for people who don't want marketers knowing where they sleep, where they get their paper mail, etc.

Geographically-specific domain names are a separate issue - it's reasonable to expect someone to guess that someuser@example-isp.sf.ca.us has an email mailbox in San Francisco, California, USA, though that may not be where their body hangs out or where they read their email from. Some people like that sort of address. But otherwise, it's not reasonable to expect that even if a given ISP has an office in City X, that that's where their servers are.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Re:Email Address vs. Physical Address by GooberToo · 2003-10-10 13:50 · Score: 1

Not sure what you think is *way* wrong. It sounds like you exactly understood and got it, rather, you just didn't realize.

You might go back and read what I said and then read what you said and then think for a moment. I'm fairly sure you'll go, "doh!", shortly after.

Why you WANT this to be Unconstitutional by billstewart · 2003-10-10 13:05 · Score: 1

As Courageous said, jurisdictional disputes are complicated - reading mailing lists with lawyers on them discussing jurisdiction is rather like reading Slashdotters discussing the correct pronunciation of GNU/Linux (RMS sucks! Does Not! Does Too!).

But you REALLY want this to be UnConstitutional, because otherwise, you'd be subject to every law in every state that your email goes to, and possibly every state where people can read your web pages or Usenet postings. You'd possibly even be subject to laws in other countries where your email/web/Usenet goes.

That would mean your Burning Man pictures could get you busted in Tennessee, because people there think that nekkid women waving fire around is obscene. (In the Amateur Action internet porn trial, it was a Federal prosecutor running the trial in Tennessee, so they're allowed to handle interstate commerce cases, and they'd also gotten the defendants to snail-mail them some video tapes, because internet bits were a pretty dodgy legal issue back then.) Think about what happens if every state and local jurisdiction each can go after you, independently, and then think about the fact that your web page is visible from Saudi Arabia, where pictures of women without their veils on aren't legal, and that you don't know where mailto:faisal12345@yahoo.com lives.
It would mean that your offer of a professional-quality massage in return for a place to stay when you go to the anti-spammer convention in RandomCity could get you busted. Sure, *you* were putting the time you were unemployed to good work learning a new skill that's widely appreciated in California, and among computer abusers, and maybe you're even certified, but RandomCity thinks that "massage" is something that happens at "massage parlors", so your email to that mailing list was "solicitation", or at least "offering massage services without a business license".
That flame you wrote about Company That Won't Be Named's product Operating System That Won't Be Named and Their Incompetent Lawyers Who Won't Be Named could get you busted for libel in Western State that won't be named under local laws and force you to show up at their local courthouse to defend yourself, whereas under Federal jurisdiction you get to discuss where the trial, if any, happens. And their UK office could also sue you - UK laws against libel are *much* more strongly weighted in favor of the plaintiff than US laws are, e.g. the fact that the negative thing you said was actually true isn't a sufficient defense there.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Yes, the bandwidth is negligible. by billstewart · 2003-10-10 13:31 · Score: 1

The bandwidth is still negligible in the aggregate, compared to web surfing. I've used more of my ISP's bandwidth today reading Slashdot than getting spam, including the spam that came into their servers and was trashed by SpamAssassin or procmail. (That doesn't include the spam that didn't make it into their servers because of blacklisting - that probably would have been bigger than my web surfing most days.) I get maybe 200-300 spams a day, most of them under 10KB each and many under 2KB each.

The balance is different for niche email providers, because they're only handling email, not web traffic, so the fact that 60-80% of email is spam does double or triple their bandwidth and storage needs, as well as increasing their support costs cleaning the garbage up, fixing overloaded servers, emptying full bit buckets, and constantly updating and maintaining spam-prevention scripts. For them it's a big deal. But for ISPs that are primarily providing connectivity, or providing hosting, it's simply not a large fraction of the bits, so it's not a large fraction of the money.

The value of my time that the spammers waste is a lot higher than the incremental cost of shipping the bits - that's what they're really stealing. If you waste an hour or two a month cleaning up spam, that's worth more than the cost you're paying for your ISP's email service. The value of lost emails that got trapped by anti-spam techniques may also be higher.

Also, think about amortizing your development efforts over the long run - the amount of time you're wasting managing spam is time that you could be spending improving your ability to use appropriate anti-spam tools, like a good sniper rifle or a GPS-guided cruise missile.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Re:Fuck You Bitches by Trejkaz · 2003-10-10 13:39 · Score: 1

Likewise SpamAssassin, when set up on the server. Only you run a fat Perl process on your server instead of a fat Java process.

--
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!

Do Not Email lists Do Not Work by billstewart · 2003-10-10 13:55 · Score: 1

It's pretty hard to tell a "Do Not Email" list from a "20 Million Fresh Verified Email Addresses" list.

There are ways to improve the process - instead of a list of raw email addresses, store the list as a set of hashes of email addresses, so you can check whether someuser@example.com is on the list, but the only way to extract lots of names from it is by dictionary-search. That's still not perfect, because it tends to break the username+tag@domain.com syntax, and doesn't easily allow wildcarding, and especially doesn't provide a good mechanism for mixing wildcarding with user validation - the people who manage the list really *do* have to verify that a user wants to be on it, because otherwise there'll be too much spoofing going on and some clever person will find a way to cause trouble by signing people up to it.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Slashdot Mirror

First Lawsuits Filed under Missouri's No-Spam Law

156 comments