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

[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.

/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.

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!

[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.

Scott Richter

[Anonymous Coward]

Scott Richter

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

Enjoy!

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. ;)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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: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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.