Alan Ralsky Gripes About Can Spam Act

fdiskne1 writes "The New York Times has an interview with Alan Ralsky, commonly known as the world's worst spammer. CNet News.com is running the same interview. Ralsky admits using open relays and virus-infected PCs and not honoring unsubscribe lists. He complains about having to comply with the new CAN-SPAM law will cost him an additional $3000 in costs to set up a genuine opt-out list. Anyone here feel sorry for him? Okay, I'm biased, but I can't wait until we see him in prison."

Comments

Well duh..

[grub]

"The law was not written for a commercial e-mailer," he said. "I don't think what they are doing is fair."

I think that's the point, Mr. Ralsky..

What an ass

[meta-monkey]

Wow.

"I personally hate mailing with proxies," he said. "It's rough. But you do what you got to do."

and

"I have changed the way we mail totally," he said. The spam fighters, he added, "have no idea what I'm mailing. They could never pinpoint it and say this is from Al Ralsky."

Ralsky said that he was uncomfortable about this deception, but that he had no choice. "Is putting bogus information in your registrations the right way to do business?" he asked. "No. But the Internet world has forced me to do that."

He doesn't seem to realize or care that what he's doing is wrong. It's like a mugger complaining, "Is putting on a ski mask the right way for me to make a living? No, but the world of people who don't wish to be robbed at gunpoint in a dark alley has forced me to do this."

Or,

"I personally hate clubbing old ladies over the head so I can snatch their purses. It's rough. But you do what you got to do."

I hope somebody clubs Al Ralsky over the head in a dark alley... Jerk.

Laws can't fix something this broken.

[LostCluster]

Security by law sits right next to security by obscurity on the list of things that help a bit, but by no means make a complete solution. Making spamming illegal isn't going to stop spammers, because sending spam by a virus-infected computer is already illegal since virus writing is illegal too... those laws haven't allowed us to stop running anti-virus programs, have they?

The bottom line is that SMTP has got to go. We need to get wide adoption of an e-mail protocol with authentication that the "from" address being claimed belongs to the sender of the message. That's the only way to make sure that spammers lose their ability to send e-mail without reprocussions. The face-value "from" address has to be much more relaiable than the current system lets it be.

He's playing the media and lawmakers like a fiddle

[claar]

What else would Ralsky say about this new "tough" spam law? Did anyone else ever tell their parents after a spanking, "Didn't hurt, didn't hurt!"? What was the result? After getting a harder spanking that did indeed hurt, children quickly learn to pretend to feel pain to avoid a worse punishment.

I think Ralsky is openly complaining about the slight inconveniences this law has caused in order to affirm this law as effective, hoping to avoid tougher legislation that would actually hinder his "business" practices.