Spammer Sues SpamCop

wolfgang writes "Just wanted to send you word that notorious spammer Scott Richter, President of Email marketing firm OptinRealBig.com, has filed suit against Ironport, which runs anti-spam site Spamcop. According to Richter, Spamcop's initiatives have damaged the reputation of his company. Richter filed for $1 million in damages. A similar suit one year ago, filed by Eddy Marin and his Florida-based Emarketersamerica.org against Spamhaus, was thrown out of court last October." We've mentioned Richter before.

Comments

what a suprise

[bwraith]

it seems that now doing the right thing will get you sued, oh wait there's no suprise here.

Re:what a suprise

[HTH NE1]

A lot of my spam seems to originate from OptinRealBig, and all of that share of spam is to the address only disclosed in the whois database.

Harvesting addresses for spam is a violation of the terms of service for whois.

Re:what a suprise

[QuantumRiff]

no, the threat of getting sued is often enough alone. Most small businesses can't afford the lawyers fees, they just fold up.. Its really a pathetic thing.. Big company (or rich person) sues a small company over something they wouldn't win. Small company knows they will win, but that it will cost $x amount of dollars for a lawyer, and the company can't afford to pay $x. So, they give in, and the evil people win, without having to go to court, because it costs a fortune to prove you are right. Why can't we go to a loser-pays system here in the US??

Re:what a suprise

[ePhil_One]

Don't forget the converse, where pathetic wacko sues company while representing himself. The company is forced to spend tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, defending itself against the outrageous claims of the loon. All because he feels his hair dryer should have had a warning that it should not be used in the shower.

Sure, the company will win eventually, but that money and time is gone, and what would the company do with his trailer home anyway?

Re:what a suprise

[realdpk]

The user can send their complaint directly to the spammer, instead of going through Spamcop. There's nothing requiring Spamcop to forward the message on intact. That's what standard mail servers are for.

Re:what a suprise

[austad]

All of my spam comes from them too, and the only place I've posted my address is in my PGP key which was uploaded to MIT's keyserver. I have 2 addresses associated with my key, and both started receiving spam at the same time, and neither one got any spam before. It started about 2 days after I uploaded it.

Fucking bastards are pulling addresses from the keyservers. Personally, I'd be scared to be a spammer. If you're sending to millions of people a day, you're bound to find one that has a screw loose and might decide to take revenge upon you. Spammers are the most hated people on the net, and that can't be good for ones personal safety.

Re:what a suprise

[Eggplant62]

Harvesting addresses for spam is a violation of the terms of service for whois.

Not to mention a direct violation of CAN-SPAM:

(from http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html)

--begin quote--
15 USC 7701

SEC. 5. OTHER PROTECTIONS FOR USERS OF COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL.

.
.
.

(b) Aggravated Violations Relating to Commercial Electronic Mail-

(1) Address harvesting and dictionary attacks-

(A) IN GENERAL- It is unlawful for any person to initiate the transmission, to a protected computer, of a commercial electronic mail message that is unlawful under subsection (a), or to assist in the origination of such message through the provision or selection of addresses to which the message will be transmitted, if such person had actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances, that--

(i) the electronic mail address of the recipient was obtained using an automated means from an Internet website or proprietary online service operated by another person, and such website or online service included, at the time the address was obtained, a notice stating that the operator of such website or online service will not give, sell, or otherwise transfer addresses maintained by such website or online service to any other party for the purposes of initiating, or enabling others to initiate, electronic mail messages; or

(ii) the electronic mail address of the recipient was obtained using an automated means that generates possible electronic mail addresses by combining names, letters, or numbers into numerous permutations.
--end quote--

It's obvious that Scotty doesn't understand the doctrine of clean hands.

Re:what a suprise

[jcr]

We work very hard to keep our mailing lists clean and we can't do it when complaints have their original email address taken out.

If you're getting Spamcop complaints, then you're not working hard enough at it, spammer.

-jcr

/me ponders...

[grub]

Scott Richter's 32-employee firm [...]

Just out of curiosity, do Uzis jam or would one be better off reloading a trusty ol' six-shooter 5 times?

lighten up, it's a joke

Re:/me ponders...

[Thng]

I'd go for the six shooter, but I'd reload it six times.

Then maybe shoot Scott 4 times, just to make sure

:-) Yes, it's a joke too!

Re:/me ponders...

[rokzy]

they don't deserve guns. use some kind of chemical/biological agent so they die in agony.

or maybe so for something "ironic" like death from a million paper cuts where each cut is triggered by a spam detector.

Re:/me ponders...

[WormholeFiend]

from www.vectorarms.com/other/UZI_history.html

"After twelve Karas and five UZIs were placed on rigorous trial in 1951, the UZI emerged as the winner because of its ability to tolerate dust and grit without jamming, as well as its ease and low cost of manufacture."

I hope this answers your question... ;-)

Re:/me ponders...

[WwWonka]

Just out of curiosity, do Uzis jam or would one be better off reloading a trusty ol' six-shooter 5 times? lighten up, it's a joke

Dear Mr /me ponders,

During normal inspection of our daily internet packet scanning and logging we came acroos this threat you made on the internet site "Slashdot".

We have reason to believe that you may indeed be a terrorist with plans to shootup any/all companies that deal with the legal practice of email marketing. Although this is a very annoying by-product it is no reason for you wanting to blowup federal buildings.

We have started a full investigation into your planned attacks on American cities and will pursue your capture and secret detention in an un-named facility. If you further threaten to drop a nuclear bomb on the state of Texas your family will also be incarcerated.

Please be aware this is for the protection of the world. We can not stand for your insistence on flooding the world for 40 days and 40 nights, or risk that possibility.

Sincerely,
US Attorney General
John Ashcroft

Re:/me ponders...

[Obfuscant]

If you turned your ol' six-shooter into a bigger, more woman-pleasing twelve-shooter, you'd only have to reload twice, and I can sell you the perfect herbal solution, no prescription necessary.

Re:/me ponders...

[Anonymous Coward]

I came home from the pub the other night to find my two cats sitting staring at the carpet opposite each other. They had found a spider with a small head a green body. It was an ugly bastard.

Apparently they'd be torturing it before I got home. I watched them torture it for another half an hour before I finally went to bed.

I imagine that after the "fun" was done, they just ate the critter, since there was no sign of the afore mentioned spider, but two very pleased cats asleep on my bed in the morning.

Not wanting to draw any parallels at all, but cats don't piss about with this sort of stuff, someone invaded their space, they tortured it and finally ate it. How is it that spam can invade my home each day and yet they can get away with it ?

Perhaps we need more cats ?

Perhaps I should get my cats email addresses, teach them to use OSX mail and see what they do.

Re:/me ponders...

[nizo]

I for one am going to miss your posts.

BTW, these guys suing SpamCom is like Michael Jackson suing a child he has been molesting (note that this in no way reflects his guilt or innocence in the current trial and is simply included as humorous content).

Re:/me ponders...

[wcrowe]

I recommend something like the Mossberg Model 500 or Remington 870 12ga. Consider: a single cartridge of 12ga 00 buckshot contains nine pellets of about .32 caliber. A .357 pistol fires 6 shots which are only a little larger than .32 caliber. So, basically, a single shot from a 12ga is like emptying a your pistol at the target -- and the Mossberg Model 500 is going to have seven cartriges in the magazine.

Plus, you really don't have to aim it.

Re:/me ponders...

[Maserati]

A Deseret Eagle ? When did the Mormons get into the arms business ?

Re:/me ponders...

[dtfinch]

Better use two uzis. If one jams up, you still have the other.

> lighten up, it's a joke

It may have been a joke, but it's not a bad idea. Suppose they've cost us a billion dollars in wasted bandwidth, and divide that by 32. That's roughly $31 million dollars damage per employee, for a personal income of probably much less than a hundredth of that. To commit such an act requires a person to be incapable of feeling remorse. The only consequences they weigh are their own. They'd kill you for your wallet if they were 100% sure they could get away with it. They share the same personality traits as serial killers, terrorist leaders, SCO directors, and other villains that would break Godwin's law to mention.

He CAN-SPAM... the law says so!

[LostCluster]

The law flat out says that he CAN SPAM. Say what you want about the guy, he's a big follower of truth in labeling....

Tthe key event is that when every you give your e-mail address to any site on the Internet you usually have the chance to opt in to getting commercial e-mail. Opt in with one of Richter's site, and just like the name of his company implies, you opt in REAL BIG to absolutely anybody who wants to Spam you via him. Oh, the dangers of leaving a pre-checked checkbox still checked when you submit the form.

Once you're caught in Richter's web, the only way out is to send an unsubscribe request email exactly the way that the CAN-SPAM says you should. Sure, responding to the unsubscribe link is a great way to get more spam from unethical spammers... but it's the only way to stop getting spam from a compling-to-the-letter-of-the-law spammer. He's untouchable, he'll plead guilty as charged to being scum... but he's breaking no laws.

SpamCop's free to spread its low opinion about OptInRealBig, but they have to be very careful they keep what they say in opinion territory. If SpamCop's willing to publish nameless acusations that OptInRealBig is sending e-mail to people who didn't really opt in, they'd better be sure those people have their facts straight. Richter's counter is that all these people really did opt in, they just don't remember when they did so. If they'd simply provide their e-mail address, Richter could likely tell them at what site and when they made their mistake of signaling that they were opting in, and if they've just send a proper e-mail to his unsubscribe address, he'll gladly unsubscribe them. But since they won't disclose their address, he can't do much for them.

Re:He CAN-SPAM... the law says so!

[Liselle]

He's untouchable, he'll plead guilty as charged to being scum... but he's breaking no laws.

Funny thing about Scott Richter, that's not true. To be crude: he's one of those people that thinks his shit doesn't stink. If you read any interview that he has done, he will repeatedly declare he is an "e-mail marketer", a regular hotshot internet entrepreneur. He's convinced himself he is a legitimate businessman. I suppose that's the only way a whackjob like Scott Richter can get to sleep at night.

Re:He CAN-SPAM... the law says so!

[Anonymous Coward]

i didn't opt in. i opened a yahoo email account within three or four days i received a single solitairy spam from optinrealbig.

being a good email person, i didn't reply nor did i hit the unsubscribe link.

within a week, the spam started pouring in.

now...two years later...without every distributing that email address to anyone...it received over 200+ spams a day.

scott richter is a liar and i'd love to know which court he filed with so i can file an amicus on behalf of spamcop attesting to his company's behavior.

Re:He CAN-SPAM... the law says so!

[tgibbs]

Although SpamCop obfuscates the address of complainants so as not to reveal their addresses to a spammer, it is still possible for the recipient of a complaint to communicate with the complainant--SpamCop will forward their response. On the rare occasions in which a SpamCop complaint recipient has responded and requested my email address in order to remove me, I've always responded (on the theory that it is not worth a real human's time to confirm my email address merely for spamming purposes).

Re:He CAN-SPAM... the law says so!

[tsg]

Opt in with one of Richter's site, and just like the name of his company implies, you opt in REAL BIG to absolutely anybody who wants to Spam you via him. Oh, the dangers of leaving a pre-checked checkbox still checked when you submit the form.

A checkbox asking for commercial email that is checked by default is opt out, not opt in. The user still has to take action to not get spam.

Do you want spam from us? [default: yes]
Do you not want spam from us? [default: no]

They both say "we will send you spam unless you tell us otherwise". Both are opt out.

Re:He CAN-SPAM... the law says so!

[cmowire]

You certianly have an interesting view of things.

In fact, the biggest problem is that the entire spam industry has made next to no good-faith efforts to legitimize itself. OptInRealBig isn't helping.

I have found, based on experiments on my wepbage (explicitly denied *all* spiders by a robots.txt file, unique email address every time it is spidered, etc) that spammers do still spider addresses, opting out does not work, even if the site claims that they comply with YOU-CAN-SPAM. They all claim that I "opted in" by submitting my name to a "FFA" site or crap like that in the bottom of the message.

I did, at one point, get some information about how a spammer got my address. They admitted that they had purchased it from somebody else, who then claimed that I allowed them to because I forgot to click a checkbox on a third company's website several years prior, but wouldn't say who sold it.

Which, if you think about it, is bunk. If permission is that vaccuous, then giving one site permission, you are really giving every single spammer permission, because they can sell said permission freely. And they don't even need to drop you. If company A sells permission to company B and C, if OptInRealBig has purchased permission from company B and you opt out, they can simply obtain permission from company C and continue to spam. So it's pretty clear that YOU-CAN-SPAM isn't going to work, even if they manage to prosecute a few spammers here and there.

See, the big thing here is that SpamCop does not really need to concern itself with YOU-CAN-SPAM in the slightest. YOU-CAN-SPAM uses the term "Spam" but does not create a legal definition of it. Thus, SpamCop can create their own definition of what spam is, and list mailers that violate that. This is similar to how the BBB creates a list of companies who violate their definition of good business. So there's nothing "legally" wrong with creating a list of mailers who buy lists from others and mass-mail them. You can even call it a list of "spammers" and sell it. Which is what this case is really about. As long as SpamCop sticks to their definition of what spam is, there's no real case that can be made.

Re:He CAN-SPAM... the law says so!

[tsg]

You have to be taking a proactive action by filling out and submitting the form. That's enough to make it opt in.

If the primary purpose of the form, from the user's point of view, is to get on the spam list, then yes, it's opt in. If getting on the spam list is a side-effect of filling out the form (for example, to get an email confirmation of an order), then it's opt out.

There are three possibities for any yes/no question: question answered "yes"; question answered "no"; and question not answered. It's what you do in the "question not answered" case that determines if it's opt in or opt out. If "question not answered" puts you on the list, it's opt out. If it doesn't, it's opt in. If you don't ask the question and put them on the list, it's opt out.

Re:He CAN-SPAM... the law says so!

[riptide_dot]

IANAL, but I always thought that law centers on proof.
Take a case where the OptInRealBig people are suing someone else for defamation of character. The burden of proof would then be on OptInRealBig to prove that EVERYONE on their spam list in fact opted-in at one point. That in itself would be really hard to prove, considering (among other things) the sheer number of people they'd have to provide proof for. But, consider this: what if someone ELSE opted in using that person's email address? Doesn't OptInRealBig have to prove that the PERSON opted in, and not just the email address?

One of my previous employers had a disgruntled employee that signed him up for a bunch of porno magazine subscriptions in hopes that he'd have to pay for them. Since the publishers of these mags couldn't prove that it was in fact my employer that signed himself up, they had no claim to make when they wanted to charge him hundreds of dollars for the subscriptions, hence they couldn't sue him for a red CENT.

Scott Richter

[Anonymous Coward]

Scott Richter

Phone number: (303) 550-9828(Daily Camera)
Email: scottrichter422@yahoo.com

Enjoy!

Re:Scott Richter

[lynx_user_abroad]

so what form of request is sufficient?

CAN-SPAM says (IIRC) that it's up to the spammer to decide what sort of hoops you need to jump through to get "unsubscribed".

For example, a spammer could offer you the opportunity to unsubscribe using a hypertext CGI command like http://example.net/cgi/unsubscribe_me_then_resubsu bscribe_me_again_in_10_minutes.cgi

Rule #1 is in full force here.

Re:Scott Richter

[Gogl]

There's no way he still uses that email address. It recently got some rather high profile and hilarious coverage (Daily Show clip, requires Realplayer).

Where's my Opt-Out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, they don't have way on their web site to get your email address off their "opt-in" email list.
So if you want to try and "opt-out", you'll have to contact them.

OptInRealBig contact info:
info@optinbig.com
phone: (303) 464-8164
fax: (303) 464-8218
1333 W 120th Ave
Suite 101
Westminster, CO 80234

Any questions regarding their Acceptable Use Policy should be sent to legal@optinbig.com

Re:Where's my Opt-Out?

[LostCluster]

That seems to be a valid contact address, but that's not their Opt-Out address.

The only place they have to publish their Opt-Out intructions is at the end of every e-mail they send. Can't tell the difference between Richter's e-mails and the other not-law-compliant spamemrs? That's your problem...

Yep, opting in is so easy you can do it without realizing you did. Opting out is so hard you have to strugle to get it done and will often fall into the trap of verifying that you read spam e-mail.

Oh, and you kill your spam before you read it? Oh well, you'll also end up killing the ever elusive opt-out info.

Somehow, this CAN-SPAM law isn't quite what we wanted in an anti-spam law...

Re:Where's my Opt-Out?

[ethx1]

Thanks for that info. I'll spam that email address and fax number and see how those bastards like it. I'll also get their phone number to a psychic hotline.

I read an article somewhere about faxing carbon paper (all black) continuously by taping 2 sheets of it together in a loop so it would go on and on and waste all their ink. hehe perfect time to try it. ;)

Re:Where's my Opt-Out?

[Piquan]

I read an article somewhere about faxing carbon paper (all black) continuously by taping 2 sheets of it together in a loop so it would go on and on and waste all their ink.

I'd recommend against carbon paper, since the carbon dust might get on the lens, in the gears, etc and pretty much waste your fax machine. But other things might work well. For an example, take some of his spam and print it out in white-on-black. Be sure to use a callout box for the bit that says effectively "You asked for this!"

Damaged reputation?

[AltGrendel]

According to Richter, Spamcop's initiatives have damaged the reputation of his company.

I would think that he's doing a fine job of that by himself.

How can he hope to win this suit?

[petard]

Isn't that a lot like suing the credit reporting companies because you went bankrupt and they put you on their "do not extend credit" list? You could call it "tortious interference" with your ability to get a credit card or a mortgage.

I think that's been tried many times and hasn't worked. Why would this?

Re:How can he hope to win this suit?

[LostCluster]

Isn't that a lot like suing the credit reporting companies because you went bankrupt and they put you on their "do not extend credit" list? You could call it "tortious interference" with your ability to get a credit card or a mortgage.

I think that's been tried many times and hasn't worked. Why would this?

Because the credit card company can show up in court with contracts that indicate you really did agree to pay that debt, and then you didn't. They can spread bad facts about you because they can bring supporting documents that stand behind those facts.

Unfortately... you can't exactly prove the negative that says you never did opt in to get Ricter's e-mails. In fact, if you're willing to give him your e-mail address, he'll gladly tell you when and where you agreed that he could send you e-mail about anything he wants to. And if you send him a proper unsubscribe request, he really will unsubscribe you.

One bullet-proof defense to all complaints of slander and libel is "It's true!". However, if you can't prove the truth of that statement, you're not going to get to use that defense.

Re:How can he hope to win this suit?

[Isofarro]

There's a little thing called discovery.

Last time, during Felstein's failed eMarketers America suit, the anti-spammers went for / insisted on a full discovery - unfortunately the Boca Raton spammers bolted when they realised their predicament.

I wonder if IronPort would oblige us by doing the same? Looks like Julian Haight still has a strong presence there.

Getting a good look at the innerworkings of a spammer may just provide a better idea of how to combat them (apart from the sheer entertainment value of watching em squirm).

This one makes me laugh and cry at the same time.

[The I Shing]

I don't think I've ever seen a more obvious example of a SLAPP suit.

The bright spot for me is that SpamCop must be putting some kind of dent in Richter's business if Richter feels like he's got to sue to make SpamCop go away.

Funny how the tricky guys are the ones who talk about using the legal system to "send a message" to anyone who might defy them.

PanIP, the RIAA, and Scott Richter all seem to be cut from the same cloth. Their message seems to be we may not be entitled to a dime but don't you dare defy us, or we'll press this lawsuit until you're bankrupt.

Just lovely having people like this around.

One quote from the article that made me laugh out loud was this one:

He said that he already rejected an offer from Spitzer to settle the case for $100,000.

Oh, yeah, I bet. If Spitzer wanted to settle for $100,000 and Richter turned him down, Spitzer would've dropped it, don't you think?

The other quote that gave me quite a chuckle was, "Messing with us is a big mistake." Oh, yeah, nothing hurts a state attorney general's re-election bid worse than the ill will of a notorious and unrepentant spammer.

Anything we can do to help?

[zulux]

Is there a legal-defence fund set up for SpamCop? Of do we keep on giving money to the EFF?

Unable to Identify Sender

[Nuclear Elephant]

Richter claims that because the complaints fail to identify the original email sender, Optin cannot comply with the CAN-SPAM ACT, which requires the sender of an email to remove the address of any person who does not desire to receive any further email.

In Soviet Russia, the spammer complains about forged headers.

Test of SPAM law

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

This may be a dupe, but I thought I should post a link anyway (just in case). Especially since we all hate spammers.

Can-Spam Law Meets Its First Test

Close, but not quite!

[goldspider]

"Their message seems to be we may not be entitled to a dime..."

On the contrary, I think the organizations/companies you mentioned believe they ARE in fact entitled to make a dime!

SO, how long before....

[DasBub]

...police find Scott Richter's body in a shallow grave with a single can of spiced ham?

I'm certainly not suggesting anyone should initiate such action.... but if you already have, how much longer do we have to wait?

Sincerely,

- The General Public, xoxo

Re:SO, how long before....

[mcwop]

...or before he ends up in prison with a rapist cellmate that shows him what OptInRealBig really means.

BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!

[Moryath]

Both his arguments, and yours, are completely fucking specious.

I keep a few email addresses around on various sites. One of them is literally present on only ONE site in the world, and it's in white text on a white background, with a disclaimer "this email address is a spam honeypot, don't send email to it" in text right next to it.

That address STILL gets Richter's spam-crap. Just like every other spammer out there, he's a liar, a thief (ripping off the people paying him to advertise), and deserves to be gotten rid of.

Re:BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!

[LostCluster]

That address STILL gets Richter's spam-crap. Just like every other spammer out there, he's a liar, a thief (ripping off the people paying him to advertise), and deserves to be gotten rid of.

Are you sure it's really Richter's spam-crap you're getting, rather than somebody else's spam-crap? You've got to be sure you're accusing the right people when you go accusing...

Re:BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!

[jdreed1024]

I keep a few email addresses around on various sites. One of them is literally present on only ONE site in the world, and it's in white text on a white background, with a disclaimer "this email address is a spam honeypot, don't send email to it" in text right next to it.

That address STILL gets Richter's spam-crap. Just like every other spammer out there, he's a liar, a thief (ripping off the people paying him to advertise), and deserves to be gotten rid of.

Good. Then write up an affidavit, and send it to the Spamcop folks to help them in their lawsuit. Seriously. Mentioning it on /. won't do anything.

Because unless SpamCop can prove that people who never opted in actually got mail from this guy, he might just win, thanks to the wonderful CAN-SPAM act and the arguments laid out in the parent post. And then we're all screwed. And don't say it can't happen.

Re:BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!

[LostCluster]

Good. Then write up an affidavit, and send it to the Spamcop folks to help them in their lawsuit. Seriously. Mentioning it on /. won't do anything.

And don't forget request that the court keep the e-mail address you mention in that affidavit under seal... otherwise it won't just be published on one website anymore.

Re:BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!

[Sapwatso]

The point is, the owner of the address did not opt in the address.

Ironport

[macdaddy]

Well at least SpamCop can afford to defend itself now since it was bought by Ironport, a company that produces hardware that's designed to spam. Ironic really, biting the hand the feeds you.

Re:Ironport

[macdaddy]

We're not talking about an average machine or the components in it. We're talking about a box designed for the sole purpose of spamming. Have you ever seen or used and Ironport system? It's sole purpose in life is to send massive amounts of mail to a list of recipients. It doesn't have legit uses as a mailing list server (think SourceForge). All it is meant to do is spew mail. Take a peak at the Ironport A60 at refhost.net. BTW, refhost.net operates an MLM scam (pyramid scam). That A60 has been trained with over 275 MILLION recipient addresses. It has 600,000 queued up pieces of spam waiting for hotmail.com recipients alone. We're not talking about a PC made by IBM. This box was designed to fill our inboxes with their spam.

Re:Damaged reputation???

[Nuclear Elephant]

Richter is claiming to be "opt-in" only. Apparently the whole world has opted-in and Spamcop is sorely mistaken.

Is the glass half empty or half full?

[eclectro]

The Bad: A useful and honorable service is being sued and will have to waste resources defending themselves.

The Good: You can get a clean shot in front of the court house.

Exercise for the Reader

[ewhac]

Final Postgraduate CS Exam, Exercise 11 (Extra Credit): Design a new computer network, or a compatible retrofit for the existing Internet, that continues to express the priciples of transparency, open access, Free Speech, and anonymity-by-default while at the same time being resilient and resistant to intelligent sociopaths (both human and automated).

Schwab

Re:Exercise for the Reader

[dr_dank]

What do I look like, Al Gore?

Re:Subject of legality.

[nuggz]

Legality
Freedom of speech always has restrictions.
Commercial speech is even more regulated.

Outright fraud and violation of other laws makes some spam illegal.
Selling drugs (ie viagra), porn (obscenity laws) is illegal in some places.

Some spammers hijack computers or use them without the owners consent. This is also illegal.

Most spamming is against the service contract that of the spammers ISP. Contract violation.

Many people do not want spam, and do not want to pay for it, this is why junk faxes are illegal.

Freedom of speech ends when you're yelling in my ear.

Re:Just wondering...

[Nuclear Elephant]

That might not be a bad idea actually, if we all configured our spam filters to forward all spams from Richter back to his personal and company email addresses asking to be removed.

Well, I guess that means the stuff really works...

[mark-t]

Or heck, even if he doesn't really have a bigger penis, he certainly has bigger balls than anyone would have expected!

Re:Subject of legality.

[Kenja]

"If spam was illegal, this case would never hold up. But seeing as unsolicited e-mail is still totally legal, this case just might make it through."

Blocking unsolicited e-mail is also still totally legal.

Spamcop just got my subscription

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been using spamcop for at least a year. Been using their free spam reporting service, the 5 second delay doesn't bother me.

The satisfaction of reporting spam through spamcop far outweighs the time spend doing it. And it allows reporting of spam, without sending an email, which keeps my email address private.

The one problem I've had with SpamCop is that it was failing to pick up the web site urls referenced in the spams. I recently discovered, however, if I "view source" of the spam, and paste the source of the spam into the correct field (I go to the SpamCop web site through a bookmark, not by forwarding email), that by pasting the spam source, the urls of the email addresses referenced are also picked up.

Hearing about a spammer attacking SpamCop, I've decided to join the premium service, and send some funds to an organization or individual whose service I enjoy using and find useful.

So expect a payment from me today, SpamCop, via the disgusting PayPal service.

So,...

[Duhavid]

Collect the facts you have, make darned sure they are all 100%, hand them to SpamCop. They use it in this suit to disprove the "they just dont remember" statement ( 1 counterexample disproves a claim... ). Be ready to testify.

Re:So,...

[LostCluster]

Collect the facts you have, make darned sure they are all 100%, hand them to SpamCop. They use it in this suit to disprove the "they just dont remember" statement ( 1 counterexample disproves a claim... ). Be ready to testify.

Be ready to testify. When doing so, be ready to state your name, phyiscal address, and e-mail address for the public record...

So the non-Richter spammers can then pick up your e-mail address off that record... talk about a can't win situation!

Re:So,...

[dossen]

Well, the only e-mail address that is relevant to this testemony is the honypot address - likely not a big loss (e.g. just move it to a new one).

Re:Subject of legality.

[YankeeInExile]

Well, not quite ...

• The supreme court has made a distinction between normal speech and "commercial" speech, and that the latter may be limited in the public interest
• SPAM has nothing to do with freedom of speech. If Scott wants to stand on a street-corner and shout his views on why his advertising should be embraced by all users to all passers by, he is invited to do so.

People - the constitution regulates what government can do -- not what private individuals (or /. editors) can do.

Re:Subject of legality.

[Schmucky The Cat]

The first amendment has nothing to do with spam. My server, my mailbox, my private property rights. The legal term of art that defines spam is "trespass to chattel." Why your argument about first amendment rights continues to show up on Slashdot years after court cases based on private property rights were upheld is baffling. It's been wrong every day that Slashdot has an article about spam and it keeps being wrong.

Scott Richter is a moron and a liar

[Anonymous Coward]

Snotty Scotty was interviewed on the Daily Show. He claims to be a "high volume email deployer" and not a spammer. He also claims that "People look forward to receiving mail. They call us. Email us. 'We didn't get our offer today. What did we miss?' We're like calm down, it's coming. Ya know, people enjoy getting email about our via-gel. People enjoy getting email about our energizer." Piece of work, huh?

The best quote of the show is this one, though:
Daily Show: "Why do you think the government doesn't want you making $20,000 a day?"
Richter: "Well, that's simple. That's the easiest question there is. Because the US Postal service is saying 'Hey, we need help. We're getting killed here. This guy can send email. He's not wiping out the rain forest. So what are we gonna do with all these little white trucks? We either gotta get this guy to pay 37 cents and buy some stamps... or we're done.'"

Scott's OptInRealBig has spammed almost everyone I know. Noone opted in. Placing an email address on a website does not consitute opting in.

If you're using the Spamhaus SBL to block incoming mail connections, you're already blocking OptInRealBig. If you're not, you can filter on the following domains:

optinrealbig.com
cpaempire.com
optinbig.com
c 4c01.com
bluerocketonline.com
ss01.net
dfmmb.co m
ew01.com
ss01.net
tekmailer.com
moosq.com
g eekpost.com

Re:I hope

[Mysticalfruit]

Actually, if any past tort law is an indicator, he'll get the beat-down he deserves.

What would really funny is if during the trial the judge was to get spam flooded from the Mr. Richter's company.

Boiler-plate response:

[JeanPaulBob]

In america, our first ammendment (Freedom of speech) rights SHOULD protect spammers.

Email is closer to a fax than postal mail. Spam is no different from faxing unsolicited advertisement flyers. It can incur significant costs on the recipient. Thus, it should not be protected.

Next?

Re:Damaged reputation???

[eclectro]

How can anyone possibly damage the reputation of a spammer or a spam company?

By saying you need a prescription for those pills???

Oh, yeah, I'm sure it's him.

[Moryath]

doublechecked with spamhaus and the like, knowing what campaigns went out when and what the pitches were.

I'm 100% sure it's his spam.

In other news

[Tokerat]

Microsoft sues the US DOJ , Nigeria sues the Better Business Bureau, and the US sues the rest of the world, all for defamation of character.

Chutzpah

[dacarr]

The whole case reeks of Chutzpah. In order to sue the antispam community for defamation, merely suing Spamcop as a means is not going to be the answer. He has to sue people who don't want spam.

Now this is a little like Kroger suing the Safeway Corporation because Safeway doesn't sell Kroger branded groceries.

Weird comparison, I know, but think of it. If you go into whatever Safeway Corp run supermarket in your area, it is expected that you are going to buy (say) Safeway Select brand root beer, and not Kroger. To do otherwise is a conflict of interest, and besides, the shopper just might like Safeway's brand of root beer over Kroger's.

Likewise, if one (eg, me) is on Spamcop's system, it is generally assumed by their defined purpose in life that the user is, at the bare minimum, passively anti-spam, and therefore does not actually desire spam - so accordingly they will either delete or report it.

Hopefully I made this at least fairly translucent.

Re:This one makes me laugh and cry at the same tim

[LostCluster]

Richter's actually using a legal principle that the anti-SCO people are also using.

When somebody goes walking around spreading FUD against you, saying that you're breaking the law and are going to get sued... you can go to court and effectively file their lawsuit against you for them. You basically sue them seeking either the FUD-spreaders shutting up, or them actually filing the lawsuit and going forward with it.

Richter's claiming SpamCop's spreading FUD against him, the same way SCO is spreading FUD agaisnt Linux users... just because the majority opinion of somebody is low here at Slashdot doesn't take away their rights in court.

Ironic.. What if I want to sue SpamCop?

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

It's part of their FAQ. Hee hee

Guess someone took 'em up on it...

Come here Scott!

[Dracolytch]

Come on Scott! Bring the noise! They didn't defame you, your actions defamed yourself... But, hey, if you want to go that route, try me!

Scott Richter's company is responsible for millions of dollars of lost productivity. Scott Richter's work is unwanted in 99% of the places that it appears. Scott Richter's company is stealing valuable computer resources and is using them for his own profit.

Not only that, but I heard from a guy at work that Scott has to have a dead dog in his bedroom to get off.

Oh, yeah... And all you Daily Show fans out there know that Scott Richter's e-mail address is: scottrichter422@yahoo.com

~D

Updated email address

[douglips]

As of 12:49 PDT, his email address is
email: scottrichter423@yahoo.com

Oh wait, now it's
email: scottrichter424@yahoo.com

Seriously, this email address is a complete waste of time. Do you really think there are 421 other users of Yahoo email that are also named Scott Richter? The second that address gets more than ten spams per day I guarantee he'll abandon it.

Re:Updated email address

[IthnkImParanoid]

The 422 address was mentioned on the Daily Show (which did an awesome interview with him) weeks ago. They put his email address on the screen while the interviewer asked if he would mind if they displayed it, he said no, and it began flashing. It was great.

Anyway, I'm sure he no longer uses it.

Court Transcript

[mcwop]

Judge: Mr. Richter, before we begin I would like to ask you if OptInRealBig sent the following email to my 5 year old daughter titled - "Enlarge Your Penis in 5 Days"?

Richter: Gasp!

Reputation?

[djan]

Sueing because SpamCop damaged his company's reputation?

That's like saying a whore's reputation was damaged because someone said she's a whore...

OptInBig and anonymized Spamcop complaints

[kindbud]

According to Richter ... "prior to sending solicited complaints by consumers to the Optin's originating ISP's, Spamcop alters the complaints it receives by removing the email address of the person or entity seeking to be taken off a mailing list thereby rendering the email anonymous."

I run an Abuse mailbox, and I have to agree with Richter on this point. That is why I created an ISP account at Spamcop.net for my networks and my sending domains, and specified that I do not wish to receive anonymized complaints. Spamcop tells the user submitting an unwanted email from us that we refuse anonymized complaints, and gives the user the chance to send the complaint with their email address in the clear.

Richter could do the same, and comply with the CAN-SPAM act just like me and my company does.

Re:OptInBig and anonymized Spamcop complaints

[stevel]

Except that people reporting spam through SpamCop are NOT "seeking to be taken off a mailing list". They are complaining about spam - spam for which it is highly likely that they never asked to receive in the first place.

What Richter wants to do is called "list-washing" - removal (from one list, anyway) of people who complain. But most spammers will gleefully add that address to all their other lists since it is confirmed "live".

I use Spamcop and choose not to "munge" my e-mail address. But I haven't yet seen Richter's domain show up as a reporting address - nor would I expect it to. It's the bandwidth provider which normally gets the complaint. Some will of course directly pass it on to the spammer.

Re: I CAN BLOCK ... the law says so!

[Rik van Riel]

and judges have time and again confirmed that the private property rights of mail server owners mean that they have the right to decide which mail they do and do not want to accept.

A similar principle applies to the users of the Spamcop block list; if they don't want mail from a certain source, there is no obligation for them to accept it. For various technical reasons I prefer some other lists (SBL, CBL, DSBL) over the spamcop list, but the people who do like spamcop should be able to use it.

As for the "free speech" argument: I have no obligation to subsidise the spammers' advertising. If they want to advertise, let them put the ads on a web page, instead of using spam and making others pay the costs...

what?!?!?!

[bizpile]

" Seriously. Mentioning it on /. won't do anything."

No wonder my litigation is moving so slowly!

Re:Spamhaus sucks

[moehoward]

Then economics and common sense indicate that your provider should get a new provider.

Or you should get a new provider if that option is available.

Isn't that how this whole thing is SUPPOSED to work? You are getting annoyed at the wrong people.

Next up

[Aexia]

Enron sues the United States Government for damages.

Claims they wouldn't have gone bankrupt if not for government interference in their accounting.

Oh they've got better than an affidavit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Richter is the spammer that The Daily show interviewed, and published the email address of. Yes, he told the daily show his email address. Appearently spamming doesn't pay that well, otherwise he'd have cable and know better.

And Richter, not the sharpest knife in the drawer. He and his lawyer are going to need bulletproof vests and a police escort on the way to the courthouse. In fact he's so completely deluded and depressed that if you just left him in the room with a loaded handgun and said, "Look I know things didn't turn out how you wanted. I can see the decent guy you might have been. So, I left you a way out, you know what you want to do." He'd probably solve the problem himself.

Re:Subject of legality.

[cmowire]

The problem is that even non-commercial spam falls into the "fire in a crowded theater" category of when free speach doesn't hold. That is, because it's been growing nearly-unchecked, it has the real possibility of destabilizing networks and causing a flood of traffic that is still filtered out.

Well, that, and commercial speach isn't free speech. Really, people misinterpreting the whole freedom-of-speech issue is one of those things that makes me want to cause bodily harm.

Really, this case has nothing to do with the legality of SPAM. SpamCop is listing OptInRealBig because it falls within their definition of Spam, not because it is illegal. This is no different than somebody suing the BBB because they have a bad record with them.

says ironport about court date:

[rcamera]

"see you at the pahty, richter"

From the suit

[eaolson]

A copy of the suit can be found here

I love this part:

OptIn is in the business of sending email advertisements to consumers who ... indirectly subscribe by giving their express or implied consent through visitation to various websites.

Yup, you heard the man. Just visiting a website is enough to consent to receive spam. What these "various websites" are, or how a website determines a visitor's email address is left as an exercise for the reader.

By reading this post, you give your implied consent for me to hit you in the face with a cream pie.

Re:From the suit

[silicon not in the v]

I think I'll refrain from clicking the link you posted to the domain [chickenboner.com]. I have read /. for a while.

Caselaw

[Xhad]

See Telemarketers vs. The Do Not Call Registry. Advertising commercial products in an invasive manner is not protected speech and shouldn't be.

Even if we interpret free speech to mean "say whatever you want", that doesn't mean I have to let you come into my house to say it.

Opt In

[FU_Fish]

Does anyone else find it odd that "optinrealbig.com" has no place on it to actually opt-in?

Re:Subject of legality.

[schemanista]

If Scott wants to stand on a street-corner and shout his views on why his advertising should be embraced by all users to all passers by, he is invited to do so.

He may run afoul of municipal noise bylaws, however. Freedom of speech is still no guarantee of freedom to be heard.

obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Because a loser pays system would prevent a small company from ever filing suit against a big evil company. The costs of losing would be exponentially larger if they had to cover the evil corp's lawyers too....and being in the right hand having a solid case never guarantees victory.

Is Ironport a black hat?

[Animats]

I dropped SpamCop after they were taken over by IronPort. IronPort sells spamming engines. "Supports up to 10,000 simultaneous connections". "Can deliver up to 1 million messages per hour". "Removes constraints on outbound email marketing".

Yeah, yeah, there are "legitimate uses" for this thing. Right. Sure.

Even worse, they have a "Bonded Sender program, under which spammers pay a fee to Ironport to bypass spam filters. They charge a fee of $20 for each complaint, but allow one free complaint per million spams. They're vague about what a "complaint" is, and admit they don't use "AOL complaints". They may be counting only complaints that reach abuse@bondedsender.com. Since they don't require that mail be marked as "approved by BondedSender", few people know how to complain. And they don't disclose their complaints, or who's in the "Bonded Sender" program.

They're trying hard to insure that all the major anti-spam systems are hardwired to let their spam through. They have patches for all the major spam detection programs. The patches bypass all other spam checking if the source IP address has the DNS record that says it's listed with BondedSender. Now you understand why they bought SpamCop.

A useful check for mail programs is to check the BondedSender whitelist, then run a conservative Bayesian spam filter on the content. If BondedSender says it's not spam, but the spam filter says it is, ship it off to the BondedSender abuse address. Definitely do this for honeypots. Any BondedSender mail that shows up at a honeypot should be reported on NANAE. That will help track how much, or how little, Ironport is really enforcing their rules.

Re:Is Ironport a black hat? MOD up parent please!

[wintermute42]

A very interesting post. I would be interested in reading other slashdotter's information and views on Ironport.

If Ironport is involved in supporting spammers, then other spammers have some reason to sue perhaps. After all, if they are using false pretenses (SpamCop is an anti-spam site) to hurt their competition this might be reason for a legal action. And the case would not necessarily be decided on issues involving spam but rather fraud and illegal competition. (Standard disclaimer: I'm Not A Lawyer and I don't play one on television).

I have to wonder how Ironport can justify "bulk email" support. There was a Wall Street Journal article about a clown who actually opted in for spam. But the number of people who do this is way too small to support any business model that I can think of. So Ironport claiming to support opt-in lists seems like a shallow way to justify supporting spammers.

Nor does it seem reasonable that they would support valid commercial email lists. Groups that someone already have a relationship with (for example, the IEEE) send email from their own addresses. They don't need Ironport. This also allows a group to handle their own email list removal.

Simple solution to spam

[danielrendall]

A humble suggestion:

Set up a fund to which people can donate money (anonymously if they like) and nominate their (least) favourite spammer.

A system automatically works out weightings for the various spammers out there and puts an appropriate price on their heads. Anybody who then eliminates the spammer in the traditional way (shotgun, car bomb, small thermonuclear explosion) can then claim the bounty.

I am hopeful that the risk of being remorselessly killed in a particularly painful way might act as something of a deterrent to even the most determined spammer, enabling the rest of us to get on with our lives and reclaim e-mail as a useful conversational tool. Some people may have reservations but it's probably no worse morally than the futures market on terrorism that was proposed recently, and much more beneficial to Joe Public.

In the 'deluxe' version of this scheme there'd be a website on which pictures of wasted spammers can be posted together with downloadable MP3s / OGGs of their dying screams and pleas for mercy and / or demands for their first amendment rights to be respected.

Sorry, I've been having a bad day...

Sadly not an answer

[panurge]

Vexatious litigants keep courts in business and contribute mightily to the revenue streams of lawyers. It is very hard indeed to have a litigant declared vexatious while he still has money (note this isn't a legal inclusive pronoun: it's usually a he).
This isn't sarcasm, there are lawyers in my family.

Re:the boxes check themselves

[amuro98]

Do you actually trust the buttons at all?

I've had the unfortunate experience where I've done business with a company online (in this case, EBGames.com), unchecked all their "spam me" options, and specified all email be sent to me in plain text (for informing me about my order's status - not for marketing junk.)

A few months later, what do I find? A large HTML-laden email from said company that started out "We haven't heard from you in a few months, and wanted to let you know about our new offers!"

I checked my account on their website. All the "spam me" buttons were unchecked, and the plain-text option was still set.

I couldn't even opt-out of the message as it had no opt-out instructions!

So, instead, I printed out their message, printed out my account setting page, and wrote a short, terse, letter explaining why I would never, ever, shop with them again. They never replied, but never spammed me again.

That was about 3 years, and at least $1000 in purchases ago. Good riddance.

Damaging reputation...

[gmuslera]

That could be read in 2 ways:

• SpamCop says that they are a bad reputation company, then they should be suing themselves as the company that gived them that bad reputation on first place with its actions
• SpamCop says that they are good guys, we should accept mail from them, that they are nice people. That certainly will damage their reputation of the lowest scum on earth, and WE should sue spamcop for saying that

In any of those cases, their lawsuit have no meaning, or they are suing the wrong company or should not be they the ones that do the lawsuit.

Last but not least, i must admire their balls on using the legal system that could probably be searching a way to fuck them badly, is a nice thing to cut off and expose in a museum.

how to win a suit against spam filtering companies

[codepunk]

Send out a bunch of spam that is legit complete with
the adv in the subject line and that meets all requirements by the new can spam law. When your messages get blocked sue every single spam filtering
solution out of existance. Now to tell you the truth I cannot stand spammers but it is a hole in the law that one of them is going to exploit and win.

they are going to win

[codepunk]

Reading the suit I am convinced they will win the suit. If they are sending spam that meets federal regulations they can and will win this suit. Now of course spammers suck but if they are playing by the federal rules then end of story their rights are being violated by spamcop, spam assasin and every other filtering solution if it does not let the message pass. They are morally wrong but legally right.

Re:they are going to win

[Voivod]

Where in CAN-SPAM do you see it giving "high volume e-mail deployers" the RIGHT to put e-mail in my Inbox? I have the right to filter my incoming e-mail, and I still have the right to pay Spamcop to assist me in making those decisions. My server, my property, my rules. How is this not clear to you?

Wish I had access to Slashdot access logs so I could see if all the "spammers have rights too d00ds!" idiots are coming from the same IP in CO or FL...

Re:Is Ironport a black hat? MOD up parent please!

[Animats]

Ironport might call it "legitimate e-mail marketing". But it's spam. Nobody buys Ironport products or services to send out their church newsletter. Unless you're a big-time bulker, you'd never be able to keep an Ironport A60 busy.

What's scary about Bonded Sender is that IronPort is putting a big hole in the anti-spam infrastructure. They have total control over this hole. They have no contractual relationship or legal obligation to mail recipients that says they can't use it any way they want to. They just say "trust us". They can change the rules and open the spam floodgates once they have enough people relying on Bonded Sender.

We've heard that before.

They have a TrustE logo, but that's meaningless. All that means is that you agree to conform to your own privacy policy. Which you can change at any time.

They might, for example, change the rules to "conform to the four pillars of responsible E-mail" promoted by the Direct Marketing Association. Those don't require double opt-in or a previous business relationship, so bulkers can trade mailing lists around. All they have to do is honor narrow opt-outs. (Opt out once for Viagra, once for mortgage refinancing, once for inkjet refills...)

Richter's Domains and the Ukranian Connection

[Dynamoo]

One main hub of Richter's empire is CPAempire.com - compare this with SPAMempire.com. He has a subsiduary, Blue Rocket Media, which appears to operate waaay offshore in the Ukraine.

Blue Rocket Online Media
Rus Penkatar
Alekseeva Str 29
Kharkov, Petra 61009
+3.80577036200

For a "legitimate" outfit, he sure operates some dodgy sounding domains:

• Allchickswithdicks.com
• Bumfightsonline.com
• Cuterteen.com
• Dailypornbox.com
• Darknspicy.com
• Eatmypussyright.com
• Ebumfights.com
• Ejackolate.com
• Funamateur.com
• Funcheerleaders.com
• Funwithpee.com
• Hotterass.com
• Hugermelons.com
• Itoonsex.com
• Lesbianssizzle.com
• Moreropes.com
• Oralwonders.com
• Orgyfilms.com
• Outsidevoyeur.com
• Peeperdorm.com
• Pillsofpleasure.com
• Realbigerotica.com
• Realbigfetish.com
• Realbigsex.com
• Seducewomennow.com
• Sexierstories.com
• Sexyanalteens.com
• Sexylegssexyfeet.com
• Sexyyoungstuds.com
• Smallnsexy.com
• Youngerasian.com
• Youngervirgins.com

If you're interested in seeing Richter squirm, check out this thread at Abestweb where Richter and one of his sidekicks desperately try to convince affiliate marketers that OptInMyArse.com is a legit business operation. An amusing read.

Interesting Quote....

[koa]

"We are going to send a message," said Richter

I'm serious.. He actually said that! hah. ...Send a message, how about Millions ?

(ok, a little out of context.. but still funny :)... )

Plan

[phorm]

You know... death by cat is not a bad plan. You see, cats are by nature much more predatory and a good degree less loyal that other animals such as, say, dogs. If you get about 1-2 dozen cats and half starve them for awhile (so they're hungry, but not incapacitated). Later, off Mr. Righter a nice oil massage. Use tuna oil, and bind him to the chair. Lock in a room for about 24 hours and release the cats.

Trust me... it wouldn't be a nice way to go, but it would be appropriate for a dirty spammer.

Disclaimer: The situation above is entirely hypothetical. It is for personal amusement only, and should not be construed as advice to commit acts which may be of dubious legality

Re:how to win a suit against spam filtering compan

[ChaosDiscord]

Send out a bunch of spam that is legit complete with the adv in the subject line and that meets all requirements by the new can spam law. When your messages get blocked sue every single spam filtering solution out of existance.

Out of curiousity, exactly what would you be suing them for? The CAN-SPAM Act doesn't have anything to say about filtering systems. The prior arguments in favor of filtering solutions (In short: the filtering solution isn't forcing you to use it) still stand up just fine.

Tortuous?

[BillX]

The complaint filed alleges "Tortuous Interference with Contract,...

Um, I think the spammer means "tortious" (involving tort law), not "tortuous" (long and winding, IIRC). Don't lawyers proofread these things anymore? (Of course, without seeing the original filing, I can't tell whether the spammer's lawyer or the reporter is the doofus.)

"free speech" ? SPAM is no "free speech"

[e_AltF4]

"free speech"

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech"

- only applies to political speech, not to commercial speech
(and NO, enhancment of body parts or \/|4G.R$ are not "political speech")
- only applies to the state preventing free speech
(and NO, this is my mail server and not the mail server of GWB)
- does not force anyone to listen
(and NO, you can't come into my living room to tell me about your internet pharmacy)

The Rules of Spam

Rule #0: Spam is theft.

Rule #1: Spammers lie.
Sharp's Corollary: Spammers attempt to re-define "spamming" as that which they do not do.

Rule #2: If a spammer seems to be telling the truth, see Rule #1.
Chrissman's Corollary: A spammer, when caught, blames his victims.

Rule #3: Spammers are stupid.
Krueger's Corollary: Spammer lies are really stupid.
Pickett's Commentary: Spammer lies are boring.
Russell's Corollary: Never underestimate the stupidity of spammers.

Getting your honeypot address published is ok

[billstewart]

It's really ok to have an address like that get published. If more spammers start sending it spam, that's more entries for your spam filter tables, more IP addresses and sender domains you can blacklist, more hashes to feed Razor with, etc. If it gets flooded too heavily, you may have to kill it off and replace it with another address. On the other hand, if it becomes sufficiently well-known among spammers that this address is a honeypot that they actually stop selling it to each other, you can also get another address, and meanwhile, maybe your spam load will go down a bit.

I mean, wasn't the address 'canned-spiced-meat-products@example.com' a bit obvious anyway? :-)

You're missing another converse

[billstewart]

Pathetic wacko sues company while representing himself, or using one of those cheapo ambulance-chaser lawyers who advertise on late night cable TV channels, because he feels his hair dryer shouldn't have exploded when simply plugged into the wall 10 feet away from the shower, or because he feels that emitting toxic carcinogens from burning plastic is not usual behaviour for a minor appliance. And he loses, because he doesn't have adequate legal representation to go against the company's $5million legal staff.

In a loser-always-pays system, if he sues them and fails, he loses big, so he can't risk suing them even when he's right, because he doesn't have the resources to be 99% sure of beating them, and he knows that they can generate near-infinite legal costs that he'll have to cover. This seriously chills lawsuits by little guys against big companies.

In today's system in the US, he can risk suing them, because if he does at least a halfway-adequate job of making his case, the judge probably won't award legal costs to the winner. On the other hand, if he does try a case that's obviously pretty bogus and frivolous, he'll probably have to pay their legal costs, unless his case is _so_ bogus that it gets thrown out very early in the process, long before getting to trial.

DNS blacklists are federally protected

[wshs]

17 UFC 230(1)(2)

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessivly violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described."

Broken down for:

ISPs that filter:

"no provider .. shall be held liable of any action .. to restrict access to material that the provider .. considers .. otherwise objectionable"

DNS blacklists:

"any action taken to .. make available .. the technical means to restrict access to material described"

erm, USC not UFC.

[wshs]

erm, USC, not UFC.

Merely A Shift in Business Model

[Trolling4Dollars]

If you can't succeed by anoying the hell out of people with unsolicited bulk e-mail, then SUE EVERYONE!!! Scott, welcome to the ranks of Darl McBride. You two should be very cozy together once you get saddled up in the same prison.

Losers like Scott and Darl act like it's their "god given" right to profit with as little effort expended as possible. Well you know what? FUCK THEM! ;P

Scott "Bin Laden" Richter

[cpghost]

Scott Richter and other high profile spammers are conducting a sustained full-scale DDoS attack against the NSA's ability to monitor E-Mail traffic.

One of NSA's main sources of informations in the war against terror is traffic analysis. Terrorists are using strong cryptography nowadays, so it is difficult (even for the NSA) to decrypt. However, traffic analysis exposes pattern of communications that can be extremely useful in tracking down terrorist networks. If A sends a message to B, it would normally mean, that both parties have a common relationship which should be investigated.

With the constant flow of spam, traffic analysis is effectively thwarted. One can hide in the unending stream of spams, simulating an infected Windows PC drone. It is always possible to deny having sent a message: "Hey, how could I know that my PC was infected by that damn worm again?"

Spam is an excellent vehicle for steganography too. With all this random nonsense designed to circumvent spam filters, hiding an encrypted message there is a piece of cake.

Lobbying Ashcroft or Congress to outlaw spam is difficult. The DMA proved to be much stronger this time.

Write to your representative, and point out that CAN SPAM provides terrorists with an effective method to escape detection and surveilliance. Point out that CAN SPAM, as it is written today, harms the National Security in unintended ways.

With all this terror hysteria in Washington DC, you could even make an impression!