Slashdot Mirror
Suing the Spammers
ReadbackMonkey writes "AOL sued a Queen's based group of spammers, and
was awarded $600k. " As always spam is a nasty problem. This morning I was hit with my wseekly request to purchase toner (I don't own a printer) as well as an exciting pornographic opportunity. Its annoying, but I still don't feel happy about seeing lawsuits like this. I'm happy to see spammers pay, but how far could this go?
About time I say! Score one for the spam-haters!
It seems to me that AOL oughta be passing that money on to the actual people who received the spam. I'm sure their argument was that it was wasting precious space on their servers, but they are still not the people who really suffer from having to wade through the spam every day.
Mr. Bun: Morning.
Waitress: Morning.
Mr. Bun: Well, what you got?
Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg, sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg, bacon and spam; egg, bacon, sausage and spam; spam, bacon, sausage and spam; spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam; spam, sausage, spam, spam, spam, bacon, spam, tomato and spam; spam, spam, spam, egg and spam; (Vikings start singing in background) spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, spam, spam and spam.
Vikings: Spam, spam, spam, spam, lovely spam, lovely spam.
Waitress: (cont) or lobster thermador ecrovets with a bournaise sause, served in the purple salm Mr. Bunor with chalots and overshies, garnished with truffle pate, brandy, a fried egg on top and spam.
Mrs. Bun: Have you got anything without spam?
Waitress: Well, there's spam, egg, sausage and spam. That's not got much spam in it.
Mrs. Bun: I don't want any spam!
Mr. Bun: Why can't she have egg, bacon, spam and sausage?
Mrs. Bun: That's got spam in it.
Mr. Bun: It hasn't got as much spam in it as spam, egg, sausage and spam has it?
Mrs. Bun: (over Vikings starting again) Could you do me egg, bacon, spam and sausage without the spam then?
Waitress: Ech!
Mrs. Bun: What do you mean ech! I don't like spam!
Vikings: Lovely spam, wonderful spam....etc
Waitress: Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Bloody vikings. You can't have egg, bacon, spam and sausage without the spam.
Mrs. Bun: I don't like spam!
Mr. Bun: Shh dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your spam. I love it. I'm having spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, spam, spam and spam. (starts Vikings off again)
Vikings: Lovely spam, wonderful spam...etc
Waitress: Shut up! Baked beans are off.
Mr. Bun: Well, can I have her spam instead of the baked beans?
Waitress: You mean spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, and spam?
Vikings: Lovely spam, wonderful spam...etc...spam, spam, spam! (in harmony)
Looking at the article, the spammers were deeply noncompliant, even throwing the served papers out the door. I really have little sympathy, though it's unclear why AOL weren't able to get their internet access nuked.
If this happens, I hope somebody puts a webcam on their cell. I'd pay to see that!
Now watch, some spammer will send out spam advertising the WebCam on the spammers.
;^]
www.eFax.com are spammers
IMHO spamming is something that should be prevented as rigorously as possible, and if lawsuits are the only effective means, so be it. However, this procedure is slow and unavailable to small ISPs who don't have the $$$ to back up such a lawsuit.
AOL gets the money because spam is taking away resources from THEIR network. Yeah, the end user has to read through and delete all the spam, but it first has to pass through their network. And when you pay for your bandwidth, the spamers should be held responsible for their actions. AOL has paid for the network equipment and everything.
I feel that isn't enough to stop spam, but I would really love to see other spamers have to pay up also.
While the problem of Spam seems to have lessened in recent years (it did for me, anyway), I still think Spammers should be hit with everything we can must.
Real-life advertisments are bad enough, but Spam really takes the buiscuit. It's often illegal or immoral, and almost always the spammers hide by abusing a honest netuser's badly maintained mailserver to handle the load of traffic, generating in fact large damages. Also, some spammers go even further - Twice, a spammer used my email address in the From field. This, as you may understand, caused in me a "zero tolerance to spammers" attitude.
If Spam was properly labelled and included valid from: information, I could tolerate it (and feed them their own spam). Just like in the Real World.
Anyway, the bottom line: I think with lawsuits like this, justice is served.
Now, for the Amazon Patent trials... *SIGH*...
The corporation which mails 74 metric tons of promotional disks to innocent victims everywhere just recieved nearly a million dollars from spammers?
...stay tuned for next year's exciting episode.
Why can't the real victims get some of this cash? Is AOL going to dump the money they made from this lawsuit into producing more "30 minutes free" CD's? Will our civilization dissapear underneath the combined weight of Publisher's Clearing House and America Online?
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
Maybe they wouldn't have all these server and bandwith expense problems if all of their idiot fuck users would not forward 9238492829038429 messages a day. People need to understand E-Mail is a tool, not used to forward "cute" shit all day. This has to be my biggest pet peev. That is why no AOL users have my work address.
Leben lang das Scirocco GTX!
Scirocco! It's not just a car its a way of life!
-----------
--------------------
Earth first? Oooh, and I was thinking of paying the rent.
Spam still is a problem. How much bandwidth and storage is wasted daily on unsolicited commercial email? I actually sorta admire AOL in that they fought the spammers and won. I doubt this will "deter" any future spammers, but it will give them something to think about.
I know a few states, at least, have anti-UCE emails. However, it shouldn't be a nation or world wide thing. Suing is the correct path of action, because the spam itself takes up precious bandwidth, costs the end-user (in terms of connection time), and costs the ISP (in terms of storage). I'm hoping that this makes an impact on the amount of spam, but I'm not holding my breath.
Now, I have to get back to making my AOL coasters...
-- Count Spatula: The Culinary Vampire "...because my cooking sucks."
We all know that SPAM really sucks, but what are you going to do? Sure you could take the time to trace the message all the way back to its point of origin, but do you really WANT to do that with all of 'em? Lets face it, SPAM wastes everybody's time. The sender needs to compose the message, the reciever needs to sift through dozens of unwated solicitations, hell - it even chews up CPU time to send off 10,000 messages at once. What I don't understand is why AOL recieved anything. Sure the messages use up some disk space - Big Deal! Hard drives are so cheap nowadays. It's not even like AOL even needed to wade through it! The money should be filtered down to the people who actually recieved the SPAM. It's nice to see that people are taking a stand against spammers, but let's face it - they're fighting a losing battle.
I've resorted to a two-tier e-mail address scheme to avoid spam.
I have a public e-mail address, and a private address. My public address is the one listed at the top of this message. My private address isn't listed anywhere, and never will be. I've configured pdrap@startrekmail.com to forward everything to my other e-mail address where I can read it. All my friends have the other e-mail address because it never changes.
Eventually, spammers will all have the pdrap@startrekmail address, and it will be useless because of all the spam. All I need to do is abandon the address, and sign up for another one. My main e-mail address never changes, so my friends never need to update their address books.
So far, it works.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
This is something I've been waiting for. Spam does cause damage. If you flooded someone's network with zillions of ICMP packets in a packet flood should you be liable? Of course! The same applies for spam. Some people may cry "Free Speach!" but really. Free speach is not helped by allowing spam. If I was to packet flood you with the Communist Manifesto could I claim that I should be protected by free speach? Of course not.
There are common carrier precidents that allow an ISP to escape liability if they do not try to filter out what their customers see. Spam should be an exception.
In the mean time I hope more ISPs follow AOL and sue spammers. It's about time.
Whatcha gonna call it? TacosHos.com? RobsBitches.com? SlashdotHotties.com? C'mon, let us in on it! ;-)
Its annoying, but I still don't feel happy about seeing lawsuits like this. I'm happy to see spammers pay, but how far could this go? On the one hand, you abhor spam and desire that spammers spend eternity in the innermost circle of hell. On the other hand, you're not sure you want them sued. What gives? Currently, suits such as this are our ONLY redress against spammers, since in most states, spam is neither a criminal nor a civil offense. The only leverage anyone has against spammers is to sue them as hard and as long as possible. In general, only corporations have the legal resources to do this. While I would prefer to see other solutions in the long term, in the short term, I see no way around these law suits except to let spam continue unabated. These lawsuits also establish a trend in the court systems (I don't want to say precedent, since they're not necessarily precedents). As long as the court system is finding that spam is bad, spammers can't tell Congress and state legislatures "We've been doing this for years, there's never been any indication that it's bad or wrong, and now you're taking our business away from us." Trust me, they will use this argument if they can.
There are clear-cut laws regarding spamming; and it doesn't disturb me in the least that these are being inforced. I do find it interesting that AOL: one of the main perpetuators of SPAM on the internet is the one filing the lawsuit however ;-)
Once again, /. posts an article without reading it themselves:
> The unsolicited messages, which included fraudulent headers misrepresenting that the messages came from aol.com...
They weren't busted because of the spam, but because the spam appeared to come from AOL.
> AOL was entitled to recover for unjust enrichment, since Christian Brothers unlawfully used the AOL mark...
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
The way I read that, AOL are complaining that they wanted to spam their own customers and got damages on the basis of lost spam-generated revenue. I'm not sure what they mean about "misappropriating the AOL mark". Perhaps the Christian Brothers are one of the group of spammers that use somejunkaddress@aol.com as the From: field.
This means any ISP can sue spammers that use their services on the same basis.
WOOHOO!
It's a small win, but it is a win indeed.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
such as this guy which i received at 'yougotthisfromslashdot@overtone.org' the other day. ---
We are writing in response to your software advertisement on the Internet, and
will be honored to feature your software in our listings with a description and
link to your home page., etc etc etc.
It looks like the spammers didn't even respond to the notice of a default judgment. How pathetic -- ignoring the law, until a sheriff shows up with an arrest warrent for contempt of court. This pretty shows what type of mettle spammers are made of.
What is so bad about sueing spammers? Spam is annoying, it creates lag, and people who don't send it have to pay for it. I didn't check my email for a week and I got 40 spam emails. That's about 4 months worth of paper mail spam.
Far enough that people start behaving responsibly on the network? Hey, I can dream...
Aside from the self-serving "free speach [sic]" arguments of the spammers themselves, I can't imagine anything bad to say about this.
Time to plug my spam solution again.
Mind the Gap
Spam isn't "no big deal" It costs lots of money to maintain servers that can handle large amount of email. Spam just adds to the load. When you send 500,000 messages to and ISP, as is often done by spammers, you use up *huge* amounts of computing power. Hard drive space may be cheap but it does cost money. The millions of spam messages add up real quick.
600,000? Is that really THAT much these days. Not to say that I think it's pocket change...if I had 600K all of a sudden, I'd need a new pair of pants(i.e. I would have pissed them). Anyway, it's a lot of money...but not THAT much.
- --
And maybe that money would have been better spent informing users NOT TO RESPOND! This is similar to the people on the street with the cups of change (they never have empty cups, and yet they still beg...hmmm...note: this last comment was not meant to start a flame war, just an observation). If you respond to these people - give them change - they will continue to beg. If some people respond to spam, spam will continue to be sent. If people continue to buy lottery tickets hoping to win(and thereby bringing lots of money to the people running the lottery), lotteries will continue to be run.
So, the next time you get one of those spam emails giving you an address at which you can be removed, don't bother...it might just be their way of seeing if your address is real.
-----------------------------------------------
"chmod a-rwx / -R" [ENTER] "hmm...access denied? but why...oh..oh...oh crap"
Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
Make up your mind CmdrTaco, you hate SPAM but you don't want to see lawsuits to stop it? What?
There is a law against unsoliticted email in the US I believe and read the article, what these apricot sellers did is close to fraud. They ignored cease and desists, tried to fake their from address etc etc. We need more lawsuits like this, only the realisation that the money they may be fined is more than the amount they can make will stop these companies.
Free speech is one thing, anyone should be able to put up a web site expressing any view BUT your right to free speech does NOT equal a right to send strangers unsolicited email using someone else's network.
Magistrate Judge Pitman found that
AOL was due $17,940 in hardware processing costs;
I find this rather low considering how long the spamming went on.
$24,625 in attorney's fees;
Again this is fine with me. Lawyers don't come cheap.
and $200,000 in punitive damages.
Fine em out the ass is my preference.
but here is the one that gets me:
treble damages of $389,020 for lost advertising revenue
They actualled got payed because they couldn't send out their *OWN* spam?
How did they calculate this amount. What advertising was lost? Is this based somehow on a combination of the others? Due to the fact they lost such and such amounts of money paying for the other stuff, they were not able to invest this into advertising? Can someone explain how this works?
Also does anyone know if the disclaimers that many people put on their websites stating to the effect of "any unsolicted email is considered to be submitted for proffing at 500 per email" or whatnot are legally valid and binding?
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
We can cure lots of problems easily.
Start charging a penny per recipient per each message sent, to curb the excessive mailings from spammers.
And use the profits to buy you a printer, so that those with enough money to spam under the new system can expect your business.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
A QUEENS-BASED group that markets apricot seeds as a cancer cure over the Internet has been hit with more than $600,000 in damages for clogging the computer systems of America Online Inc. with the transmission of millions of the unsolicited e-mail messages known as "spam."
I don't doubt that this spammer contributed to AOL's network problems, but it seems like AOL is using them as a scapegoat to use as an excuse for their poor network structure. $600,000 worth? Nope. A big chunk of that money was recovered because the spammers were illegally using AOL's trademark, but AOL is trying to push it as "They clogged up our network."
Now, on to the rightfully concerned parties. Sure, AOL has the definite right to be upset about unnecessary network traffic used as spam, but what about the people who have mailboxes full of it? See, AOL gets a nice tidy $600k reward for disposing of a spammer, but what about everyone who got these spam messages in their inbox? What do they get? "Thank you for forwarding your spam message to abuse@aol.com. While we can't offer a personal response, we will look into the matter and hopefully collect a nice chunk of change while you get spam from 8 million other AOL addresses. Have a nice day."
AOL should use the cash to update their network for their members, but they won't. That money is going into their "So-easy-to-use-no-wonder-it's-number-one" ad campaign. And with every new member who signs on, their network slows down another notch.
"By God, it must be more spammers."
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Why not? Try looking at it this way:
People who send 'spam snailmail' (i.e., junk mail) have to pay the United States Postal Service directly to compensate its workers and postal carriers and finance the infrastructure which facilitatesthe delivery of that mail. If they want to send junk mail to 100,000,000 people, it's within their right.
However, Internet spammers are paying an ISP on the edge of the Big Ole Net for two pipes -- one into the ISP, and one out onto the rest of the Internet. If they send out spam to 100,000,000 people, that mail
- Traverses lines and takes up bandwidth provided by companies who receive no compensation for allowing the spam to pass
- Is parsed by mail servers that are administered by folks whose companies do not get compensated for simply parsing other peoples' email
- Takes up tremendous amount of expensive disk space on servers that are run by companies who receive no additional fundage for delivering that email.
So, it's like paying 1 post office a penny a piece to deliver mail all over the US, instead of paying the whole postal service.It's theft. It's why we used to yell at folks in UseNet just 'cause their .sigs were too long. Now people send spam mail with HTML and graphics and code... I'll bet the amount was pretty well justified by the expense AOL had to go through to deal with the Spam.
I'm no fan of AOL, but I'll defend their right to not be stolen from any day.
-Omar@my.two.sense
As much as I dislike SPAM, I am not sure I like the idea of lawsuits over SPAM. Politicians, businesses and the like will have an easier time *regulating* the net if lawsuits begin to be looked upon as a functional way of getting what they want. I'm not sure I like that very much.
They send me weekly ads for toner. I have replied and told them I don't own a laser printer, but that doesn't seem to convince them that I don't really need toner...
Spammers abuse other people's private property, raise the costs of everyone's Internet access, have basically no interest in anyone's desire for privacy, and generally piss off 99% of the people who receive their crap. And it is crap. From obscenely detailed come-ons to porn sites (sent with disregard for the recipients age and sex) to illegal and fraudulant "business opportunities" they are so far from being legitimate and valid businesses it's beyond belief. In six years as an Internet user I have never received a spam that was of any interest or relevance to me.
Thing is; they only have to get a tiny response rate to be successful. If you mail a million people, and 0.01% respond, that's still one hundred responses. The cost (to the sender) of spamming those million people is very small, and the prospect of one hundred responses can certainly justify it. Who cares if the other 99.99% want you hung? There's always another ISP to buy a throw-away account from for next week's spam.
But someone pays. The ISPs do, in terms of bandwidth, storage space, and full-time staff to deal with the abuse (read: "mainly spam") problems. And you pay, in terms of your own bandwidth and your own time.
"But surely," the spammers squeal, "anyone can send any emails they want. The Internet is open to anyone!". In fact, this isn't true. The Internet is a collection of interconnected private networks. Those servers and routers are private property. Anything you do across them, you do because of private, voluntary agreements.
And the connection between your computer and that network? That's a private, voluntary agreement too. And one of the conditions of that agreement, like as not, is that you may not send unsolicited commercial bulk email. And if you ignore that rule, and incur costs and annoyance for other people? Well then, you're liable to be sued. And so it should be.
This is the way forward; not unworkable anti-spam legislation, but the simple and straightforward enforcement of voluntary private contracts. Way to go AOL. Let's see more of this.
If Christian Brothers' actions are indicative of the attitudes of spammers in general, spamming is going to become criminalized real quick. These folks have no respect for the law or even common decency. For crying out loud, they were telling people they could cure Cancer by eating apricot seeds??? That sort of thing should be prosecuted as fraud! Oh well... Hopefully this will serve as precedent, and the spamming "industry" is about to take it in the pocketbook.
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
hello.
i am starting an open source mailing list. this list will be used to contact those listed about updates to my new e-prostitution ring.
if you are interested in being kept up to date about all of the latest developments in the hot open source actress world, please add your name, address, social security number, mother's maiden name and a valid credit card number in response to this post.
all who respond will be handsomely rewarded.
thank you.
I just wish we could do something about all the telemarketers...in my opinion these people are far more annoying than spammers. At least spam doesn't start arguing with you when you hit "delete".
.1% that goes and ruins it for the rest of us by responding/buying/etc.
:)
But as far as suing the spammers goes, I can't say I agree with it (especially with the suit coming from such a large company). We have enough frivolous lawsuits in this country as it is - we don't need AOL to start suing all the millions of spammers out there.
While I do agree that something should be done about spamming, there aren't really any effective solutions at this point...even with 99.9% of us ignoring all the spam, you still have that
Actually, this has just brought to mind an interesting solution: instead of killing all the spammers, we could simply kill anyone who's ever replied to spam.
600k against a few spammers is certainly a step.
However, it doesn't thrill me that AOL is reaping the rewards of this successful lawsuit. Don't they already own the other half of the world that Microsoft doesn't?
If they'd pass this on to their customers by giving them discounts or using it to upgrade or crackdown spam on their servers, I'd be a bit more willing to give this a thumb's up.
This seems like a pyrrhic victory for those of us who get daily mail that will "make us rich without even thinking."
-- - .. .. but I still don't feel happy about seeing lawsuits like this. I'm happy to see spammers pay, but how far could this go?
ReadbackMonkey writes "AOL sued a Queen's based group of spammers, and was awarded $600k. "
--- - End Quote
Lets see. They spam the AOL network relentlessly trying to sell their Peach seeds (or whatever). They used AOL's name in their spam, presumably to make it appear that it was a partnership with AOL.
. Misappropriation of a Corporation name (AOL)
. Spam/UCE
. Attempts to hide identity (fake headers)
. Loss of bandwith, storage, network performance
(AOL)
. Possible loss of revenue (AOL could have lost
potential money due to that group using the
AOL name in its marketing)
. Refusal to stop, even after repeated requests
by AOL, etc.
. Disrespecting the law (throwing the court papers
they were served with right back in their face,
literally (read the article)
-- -
All this, and you hate to see someone like this get nailed with a decent lawsuit? Personally, I think someone who behaves in that manner, totally disrespects the law, wastes everyones banwidth, and is only concerned with themselves (they continued to send mass spam to AOL customers even after the request not to) should be sued into the ground and then shot. They deserve it.
(Shameless plug): ProcessTree - Put your idletime to use.
FIRST POST!!?!?!
o d+18.2-152.4
:-)
AOL has really been manipulating this, and while it may keep spam out of your mailbox, it's really aimed towards large corps like AOL and really MS (since they own hotmail).
From http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+c
it is not permissible (and is considered equivalent to misdemeanor computer trespass, that is, *cracking*) to:
7. Falsify or forge electronic mail transmission information or other routing information in any manner in connection with the
transmission of unsolicited bulk electronic mail through or into the computer network of an electronic mail service provider or its
subscribers.
All fine and well, but...
B. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to sell, give or otherwise distribute or possess with the intent to sell, give or
distribute software which (i) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of facilitating or enabling the falsification of
electronic mail transmission information or other routing information; (ii) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use
other than to facilitate or enable the falsification of electronic mail transmission information or other routing information; or (iii) is
marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in facilitating or
enabling the falsification of electronic mail transmission information or other routing information.
So I can't even *write* bulk e-mailers. I know they're evil, but this may not even be constitutional (free speech and all that). Also, the penalties which can be extracted under civil and criminal law are stacked in favor of bulk cases against bulk mailers - that is, you need to file a large suit for long-term damages, or report a huge batch of them. Now _who_ (A) would (O) be able (L) to do _that_?
btw: queen's? The british crown? the glam rock band? Or the NYC borough, which is spelled *WITHOUT* an apostrophe? Nerds should be able to use correct grammar
If the people who lost time, etc want money, then they can file a class action lawsuit against the spammers. It will probably be easier for them because this decision holds that the spammers did do it, but you would still have to convince the judge that time/money was lost. IANALBIMTALS
-no broken link
Spammers are the lowest form of life on this planet, right next to single celled plant forms and Brandon Palmer.
$600,000 isn't going to hurt them in the least. What we need to do is hunt them down in the dark of night like the vicious bastards they are. I supposed we'd need licenses, taxes, and designated hunting seasons, but believe you me, the revenue is there.
I won't be happy until every last one of them has been wiped off the face of the earth for all time.
Think I'm too harsh? Try reading my e-mail sometime. And then hand me my gun.
---
---
Remember when "Truth, Justice, & the American Way" wasn't contradictory?
Any spam I receive that seems to have a non-free address (there's not a huge amount you can do about hotmail et al.) gets placed in a text file, which is used as the seed for a web-page, so that the bots that go around mining addresses get to pick up lots of spammers' addresses.
I doubt it's useful, but it makes me feel better. After all, it's not costing me money, really - just time, and not much of that in the scheme of things.
--
"I do not speak for my employers, though they are controlled from my Teddy's huge pulsating brain."
The fact is spammers are oriented by the potential revenue they can receive. If the potential cost is a hefty lawsuit then maybe this will deter them.
'Course, this raises the question WHY spammers think they make cash out of spam. They must get some sort of validation for this belief, right? I am someone out there, or more precisely enough people out there, must respond to this junk?
Its shit like spam (particularly adult spam) that'll start those idiots in national governments thinking about censoring the Net.
In my books: Burn all spammers at the stake.
"Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except for me and my monkey" - The Beatles "If you're not part of the solution, you'
This can't really go far at all. It deals with unsolicited bulk mails being forced upon the subscribers to an online service. While the article didn't actually define (maybe I skimmed) the court definition of 'bulk', I would imagine that it is fairly considerable.
This case related purely to ISPs, and will not have repercussions in the non-wired world. It is based around the forced transmittal of e-mail inherent to the structure of an ISP. When one addresses mail to X@aol.com, AOL has to deliver it. They cannot employ a million monkeys to read every mail that passes their doors. As well, AOL does not charge for e-mail sent, only for the privilege of a member receiving it. The post office, of course, charges by sending and not receiving. This is why the Postmaster General has never sued Publisher's Clearing House.
Where will this stop? It'll stop with spammers, I presume. I've never utilised a mass e-mail in order to accomplish anything remotely worthwhile, nor have I felt the urge.
There are some legal issues at stake here. As mentioned, spam advantages itself of the nature of an ISP. I would have imagined that, legally, this would disqualify any successful lawsuits against Spam. Instead, the onus should perhaps be placed on an individual ISP to block all mails sent to >25% of its user list originating from the same domain. Of course, this still burns space on the servers for a given ISP, but perhaps these are infrastructure issues that should have been earlier addressed. What veteran of UseNET could not have sagely pointed to Timmy in Colorado and his never-ending difficulties with a variety of diseases when charged with an infrastructure consultancy role for a startup ISP? This is an important lawsuit, because it is establishing point of responsibility for bulk e-mails.
If concerned with frivolous lawsuits, this does not qualify. The United States legal system supports a suit based around unmeasurable 'psychological agony', not to mention that if you have trouble getting an erection after any sort of trauma you're entitled to a boatload of benjamins. As it were. This lawsuit seems necessary to me. It's ruling on who dwells firmly in the wrong (spammers) effectively ends the quietish war waged between ISP and marketing reps, should this case fall as a firm precedent in the judicial system.
I do have some reservations, however. My day will become increasingly dull as I am no longer called upon to wage war against Islamic treatment of women, save various children trapped in various wills, visit webpages in order to resuscitate Charlie Chaplin, indicate my grocery shopping preferences or partake of some high-quality ultra XXX full penetration action. I will no longer qualify to punch the monkey, follow links to great savings or track down a long lost love. My social conscience, smart shopping and porn consumption will all doubtless suffer as a result of this lawsuit.
Bastards.
-l
If you look at the money that AOL was due the processing costs were small compared to the rest. The use of the AOL network was just something else to throw into the action. (Like the police noting down the traffic violations during a pursuit of a stolen car so they can be added to the charges).
I hint a tone of, hmmm... concern? in this comment. I haven't seen anyone address that yet.
How far could this go? Maybe we should be concerned that sending our humor e-mails to a large list of recipients could end us up in court paying AOL heaps of money for tying up their servers, even when the recipients didn't mind receiving it. It doesn't just apply to this case -- one could argue anyone who sends large volumes of e-mail for any reason could be subject to penalties. I guess that's a concern, in a very convoluted way (although the spammers that were clipped here were guilty of much worse crimes...)
One way I've deal with this (my geographically wide-spread family sends each other a dozen or so humor e-mails per day) is by signing up for one of those free listserver/majordomo services. I'm not sure that they (e.g. OneList would defend me, but I do know that by subscribing to my list, I can show that the recipients were not just passive but took active steps to become involved in my list, therefore my weekly humor digest is not "spam". At least, that's my thinking.
I'm not happy with the spector of being abused by big business because I send a lot of e-mail to their subscribers, but on the other hand spam has gotten out of control. If direct-mail marketting companies operated like they do, they would have been locked up years ago. Sure, the "spam" snail-mail can come to you without an address; likewise you can throw it away unopened or even mail it back to them in their own post-paid envelopes. BUT, if direct-mail companies sent out snail-mail with someone else's return address on the envelope, you can bet they'd be clipped quickly. Why spammers think this helps their business case, I have no idea.
In my opinion, another thing that must be stopped are so-called "web bugs", effectively something we've already all talked about here (cookies in GIFs) but attached to HTML e-mails that automatically load on Outlook Express. I guess people who use OE get what they deserve, but this practice should be illegal. Unfortunately, I can't find the Web Bug FAQ link here, but those "1 X 1 GIFs" must go!
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
Would it be wrong to spam the spammers? Continously send them email with the from address from themselves? Continously flood ping them. Email bomb them. Continoulsy open and close sockets to all their open ports concurrently?
I know, a bit script kiddish. What would be the legal implications? I guess it's all determined upon knowing where the spam comes from.
Hard drives aren't free. Bandwidth isn't free. Sys admins don't work for free. But the spammers force you to spend more money on disks, bandwidth, and labor.
These lawsuits are good because they aim to take away the free lunch and make the spammers pay.
They're fighting a losing battle?
I dont think so. These kind of court cases need to happen MORE often. Which of the following situations would make you think twice about sending out your OWN 3 metric tons of spam:
a) no successful lawsuits against spammers.
b) 150 successful lawsuits totalling $4 million in the last 4 months against spammers.
I think people need to sue the hell out of spammers. Whats their motivation to stop? If nobody is willing to actually hurt them in a way that makes them want to stop, they wont.
Cancel their account at their ISP? ooooh, no. Now they have to make a phone call and sign up with the ISP across the street.
Sue them for $1.5 million? Even if you lose the case, its damn likely they'll reconsider before doing it again.
The problem is, a lot of laws have gotten soft.
Freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to invade my freedom of privacy. If I dont want to hear about their great new offer of prOn or printers or paper, I shouldn't have to.. but the way its becoming, its becoming almost impossible to get an email account ANYWHERE without getting at lest a little spam every day. Quite sad.
Do nothing, and it will not get better, it will only get worse. How would you like HAVING to install a custom email filter that sorted out names you knew from your inbox and dumped the rest of the mail in the trash, because you received 400 spams and 3 real emails. I can see that happening not too far in the future..
(Shameless plug): ProcessTree - Put your idletime to use.
I'm glad that the spammers got a beating from AOL, but what worries me is the thought of thousands of AOL users actually buying into the 'Apricots are a cure for Cancer' garbage.
I hope law enforcement goes after them for fradulent claims.
I'm not saying AOL users are stupid (as I usually do) but there is a certain weak element in any large group.
.sig: Now legally binding!
Mr Sam Khuri, the perpetrator of the Benchmark Printing toner spams, is himself facing a number of lawsuits but this idiot just keeps it up. See this for some more info on this bonehead.
When I have time I send the following message to:
The person spamming,
The domain the person belongs to at abuse/webmaster/hostmaster,
And the domain who hosts their DNS servers at hostmaster/abuse/webmaster.
To whom it may concern:
I will not support any organization or person who sends me unsolicited email, nor will I support any organization which allows its users to do so.
**UPSTREAM PROVIDER**:
The user at **DOMAIN** has sent unsolicited mail. According to your policy (**UPPOLICY**) this is not permitted on your servers. I am requesting that you re-iterate this policy to the following user. The email in question is included inline at the bottom of this email.
**DOMAIN**:
This is your notice to remove the following email addresses from any list, database, or any storage method or medium under your control; and is intended to inform you that any further unsolicited email from you or anyone at your domain will be considered misuse of our email servers and associated computer equipment. If you received this email from a third party please indicated to them that they are to remove the following email addresses as well.
Any email address under the domain MYDOMAIN.COM
Thank you for your time.
-M. Adam Davis
Systems Administrator
MYCOMPANY
The full header of the message is available upon request.
After this kind of message is sent to two or three spammers, my incoming spam slows down for about a week.
Of course it doesn't work if they forge their headers, but if it's particularily annoying then I'll generally track them down using the header info that is left.
-Adam
The difference between those who are committed and those who are not is the difference between the words want and will.
Marvin J. Ashton
I can think of three ways of dealing with the spam problem. 1) Utilize the existing laws as was done in the AOL case. 2) Pass laws making it illegal. 3) Find a technical solution to cut it out at the source.
AOL with its sizable legal resources has chosen to persue the first option. I think they need to be congratulated for helping to set legal precedents that will slow the spam. This seems like it will be the most effective short term spam solution.
I am not holding my breath waiting for effective laws to be passed dealing with the spam issue. It seems that every time a useful bill comes up, it is gutted to allow businesses to have free reign in advertizing to the maximum extent allowed.
So far, I have not seen a good technical solution to the spam problem. Requiring each e-mail recipient to set up mail filters or to track down the spammers and report the abuse is a tremendous waste of time to the people being spammed in the first place. Until antispam technology is built into the mail server software and the mail clients, I really don't think the spam problem will go away.
It seems to me that creating a spam killer application would be a valuable use of the open source community's time.
Rob -- I get the toner ads too. they harvest email addresses from our webpages. procmail seems to take care of such lamers quite nicely, and of course, there is always /etc/hosts.deny on our mail server.
I'm happy for AOL in this case.
Stopping spammers should be every ISP's damned duty. Spammers ruin the internet. Since I'm my own ISP, my root/postmaster account nowadays receive a lot of doublebouncing email due to spammer spamming this ar-RemoveThis-cade@kvinesdal.com address. They just spam and spam. Ignoring the fact that people hate receiving it.
Even more worrying, are that lots of people BELIEVE in the spam they get. Especially newbies. I used to help a friend of mine at an Internet Cafe in Oslo. one of the customers got some spam to her hotmail account. Suddenly she CHEERED. She thought she had won a holiday to florida. It took some time to explain to her that it was a bogus spam. She wanted to try it out. "She had nothing to lose". Blah.
We need not only to educate ISP's to terminate spammers IMEDIATELY. (I recently got spammed by "helsekost.net" here in norway. Narviknett, the spammers isp DID NOT terminate the account, only issued a warning, and neither the webhotell or telia - the upstream of the webhotell cared to take action). We also need to educate people that spam should be DELETED/IGNORED and more preferably COMPLAINED ABOUT. One should NEVER EVER buy something advertised in spam.
Also, most spam is sent through relays. Most often these do not know that they are open for spamrelays. ALWAYS lookup the domain of the mailserver, and send some mail to postmaster@host, and abuse@isp / abuse@upstream and so forth. They will take care of stopping the relaying.
On UseNet, always try to trace the spam, and complaint to the ISP of the spammer. Spam should NEVER EVER be accepted. It should be terminated, at once.
Spammers are human waste. They don't deserve to be on the net.
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
Well, let's think.
Are you planning to try to hurt AOL's reputation in front of millions of people by forging their trademark onto a fraudulent medical claim?
If not, I wouldn't worry too much.
Yes, this was a good suit. No, it's not a problem. No, it's not likely to become a problem. There's nothing that they were sued for that people shouldn't, potentially, be sued for.
Someone fussed about distributing jokes to friends. Well, as a friend who gets a lot of jokes, let me say, *STOP*. It's actually pretty irritating to those of us who skim web sites and Usenet already, because we *have* already seen it.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Being able to sue someone because you spilled coffee on yourself is just plain dumb.
Being able to sue someone who knowingly and intentionally performed actions that hurt you or your business is what lawsuits are supposed to be for.
Go AOL (even if your service sucks).
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
Thanks for your time :)
RP
Yep...
:-)
It looks a lot better than the backing that was on it before
some karma... and kinda lukewarm about it.
Hey, that's good : a "bury AOL in coasters" day
When could this be... when was aol founded ? Any meaningful date suggestion ?
I wonder if they have some kind of failsafe against returns. Or do they ship it to another poor soul
It should be illegal. "If I am elected president, criminalizing unsolicited bulk e-mail will be the first item of legislation I push for" would be the campaign promise to single-handedly win the coming election. Please don't moderate this as funny, because I am deadly serious. I don't know anyone who likes "spam".
I got one today that said: "If you don't want this e-mail, just delete it, don't have a cow." If I had a physical address....
Please, let's put some of these people in jail and STOP THE MADNESS....ARGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
Boycott etoys.com !!
Criminalize spam and telemarketing!
Nice idea, but isn't responding directly to the spammer just confirming to them that your address works and thus making it more likely that you'll receive something in the future?
It does confirm that my email address works, and that I read my email. It also confirms that as the systems administrator of this small company I will take the time to persue them and their service provider if they do not stop sending me spam.
I've found that it slows the spam down quite a bit, especially with those who do not forge their headers. Many of the spammers today do it out of shear ignorance and stupidity... They get spam from 'direct marketters with over x million email addresses for only $49.95, with free bulk email processing software!!!' and don't really understand what it really is, or think that spam is just a 'way of life' on the internet. Hopefully my email helps them understand the bad nature of spam.
Those people who are die-hard spammers will forge their headers, and already know whether my email address is active or not, it's easy to find out through various other methods.
-Adam
Illiterate? Write today for free help.
Source code is like manure, if you spread it around things grow. If you hoard it it just smells bad.
And only your own doesn't stink.
The cake is a pie
I think the poster made a valid point.
Well, if you would get the dreck I get, then this would be a happy day for you!
From what I get from spammers, I am willing to testify, that each and every spammer needs to get a front kick directly between his teas. No, that's not violance, that's a brain surgery.
And while we are at it, 100% of my spam comes from the US. Some doctor was saying 1/5 of all US citizens are nuts? He is aiming fare to low!
First Claim: $147,613.50
Second Claim: $147,613.50. This recommended award is in the alternative to the amount recomended on AOL's first claim.
Third Claim: $413,645.71. $129,673.50 of this sum is in the alternative to the amounts recommended on AOL's first and second claims; the balance ($283,972.21) is in addition to the amounts recommended on AOL's first and second claims.
Fourth Claim: No damages recommended.
Fifth Claim: $200,000. This amount is in addition to the amount recomended on the first, second and third claims.
Sixth Claim: $147,613.50. This recomended award is in the alternative to the amount recomended on AOL's first, second, third and fifth claims.
Seventh Claim: No damages recommended.
Eighth Claim: No damages recommended.
Ninth Claim: No damages recommended.
Tenth Claim: $129,673.50. This recomended award is in the alternative to the amount recomended on AOL's first, second, third, fifth and sixth claims.
Eleventh Claim: No damages recommended.
Twelfth Claim: No damages recommended.
==================================
neophase
==================================
neophase
While the above "they should get the $ 'cuz" posts are fairly valid, they miss one point: AOL is a service company, not a product company. (Yes they have product of software, but that didn't really suffer.) What suffered were the users shelling out ~$20/mo and wondering why they were getting pathetic throughput. Now, if AOL keeps the money, fine, whatever, they're a corp and can claim it for stockholders. But I would contend that everybody who pays a monthly bill to AOL is a form of stockholder as well [esp. when local ISPs only charge $10/mo.] -- and (given their chat-room atmosphere) AOL would do well to hold a sort of community rally. Maybe it's just $1 off everybody's bill for next month, (which is more than $600K, another reason AOL might as well keep the cash), but the community needs to know that something specific and good happened for them. /that's/ why AOL shouldn't view this as a financial victory, but rather as a chance for a PR coup.
You can do a lot to fight spam. Junkbusters has a site devoted to getting these intrusions out of our lives. I've used their anti-junk snailmail system, and it really does work well. They've also got a nice page on stopping computer UBE crud, too.
Personally, I never hide my mail address. It's dishonest, and, technically, against the rules. My real address, tchrist@perl.com, is sitting right here in this message, on the header for this comment, and is also posted in a hundred thousand different places--if not more. But you know what? I don't see much spam. I auto-bounce at least fifty pieces of spam per day. And most days, not more than a couple make it through -- but only once.
Some of them get bounced using sendmail's anti-spam features. I'm a big fan of the Realtime Blackhole List, which sendmail can be configured to access.
Some spammage get bounced because the sender is on my own blacklist of forbidden addresses, which lately includes things like /\b\d+\.net/. Others are bounced because they look like spam, or because they're mime-encrypted. This is all taken care of by a custom receiving program, plus some other scripts to dynamically update the blacklist.
I don't automatically bounce mail that violates reasonable netiquette, but I do have a periodic posting about the idiotic Jeopardy mail.
And yes, now and then a few innocent men are sent to the gallows. This is the price we pay on the war against spam. If it's important, they'll figure out another way to mail me.
Anyone who beats the shit out of a spammer is a good one in my book. Period.
While the problem of Spam seems to have lessened in recent years (it did for me, anyway), I still think Spammers should be hit with everything we can must.
.. if I don't use my hotmail address when I post that is.
Lessened? If anything, it has increased. My hotmail account is receiving more spam than ever. My real account isn't receiving anything, but I always munge it if I post anywhere
The hotmail address, which I use at news, in guestbooks, and 'everywhere' is on the other hand filled to it brims with spam. About 15 spams per day or something.
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
What would be even better would be if ISPs charged $0.01 for each e-mail voluntarily. (With perhaps 100 free per month or something so that most real customers wouldn't even notice)
Then in all contracts, specify that the $0.01 is not for the use of the e-mail service but for the use of the name in the from: field
Then they could sue any spammers that use their domain in forged headers $0.01 per spam.
(To allow mailing lists, they could have "special deals" that all more messages for some low fee, like $10/month.)
The cake is a pie
I say more power too the mega-corps with the $$$ to bust these spammer's asses. I'm tired of all this "I have free speech rights blah blah blah" ... "spamming is legal and moral blah blah blah" ... once you invade MY inbox, all bets are off pal.
The fact that AOL nailed 'em on fraudulent use of the AOL.com domain in headers just goes to show how spammers will be forced out of business. This is common practice by almost all the spammers out there since they know their emails are hated by 99% of the users they hit and would rather NOT have it traced back to them. With more and more spammers getting busted for this practice, they'll have nothing to hide behind and YOU KNOW DAMN WELL that if they can't be anonymous frauds, 99% of existing spammers won't spam anymore.
I keep watching for a spammer to try getting me - I would love to collect $500 from them for violating the WA state unsolicited commercial e-mail law.
Oh well, I'm probably better off not having to go thru the court system. Still, nice to know the law's there. Now if congress or the white house would just write one for the whole country (preferably even stricter than the WA one - which doesn't make spam illegal; just makes misrepresentation in the header or subject illegal).
I'm surprised that anyone who runs an Internet-based venture (besides spammers themselves, that is) would not be happy to see more judgments like this. The problem, as mentioned in another thread, is that many small ISPs lack the legal resources (and cash) to pursue spammers for damages, even if they can find an attorney willing to take the case for a contingency fee. And spammers can be a shadowy lot--it takes an enormous amount of time and effort to track them down, and once they're found, they usually have moved on or closed their doors.
So kudos to AOL: they are, and have been, willing to put their legal team to work to pound spammers who abuse their network. Hopefully by using their corporate muscle, they can shut down the more inveterate spammers permanently and prevent them from victimizing smaller ISPs that don't have AOL's resources. I am not a big fan of AOL, but their spam-fighting efforts in the legal arena have usually been commendable.
Of course, AOL probably would not need to use such tactics if they would just provide their subscribers competent spam-filtering tools, but that's for another thread . . .
that's about all I know to do.
Last time w/ a note that I spend about 15 min/business day sorting thru the crap and asking if the total industry wide loss of productivity is worth what little revenues and taxes that spam generates.
Boojum
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need that, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
We don't really need new laws--trespass will do it (see my coment in the ebay section). However, "joinder" is an issue that needs a change either legislatively or through court rules. It's not worth suing over a single spam. On the other hand, if an ISP could go in with spam for ll of its subscribers at once, it could be efficient.
Then again, an ISP might require an assignment of rights today to allow it to do this, crediting back part of the proceeds to subscribers' bills . . .
hawk, esq.
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice.
By sending the spam into the U.S., the spammer has subjected itself to U.S. law, and potential judgments.
Once a judgment is issued, *any* asset--such as the payments from the next round of spam, web banner royalties, credit card proceeds, and the like an be attached (seized) in payment of the judgment.
Fortunately, you put this on a computer screen, rather than on one of the microeconomics finals being filled out in front of me as I type--you would have failed my class :)
That rates have dropped says *nothing* about whether prices are higher due to spam. Yes, they are lower than they used to be. This in no way suggests that prices would not be lower without spam, and very basic economics reveals that spam raises prices. The question isn't "are the prices higher?" but "how much higher are they?" (and maybe it's not enough to worry about.
In any market with any competition between vendors, higher costs mean higher prices.
hawk, writing as an economics professor this time
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. Etc.
*all* that is required for a contract is offer and acceptance; not any exchange. These can take many forms, including aceptance by performance. It is *entirely* possible to have a contract that you accept by sending packets.
hawk, esq.
I didn't read through all 130+ comments before posting this. I appologize.
The best way to fight spam is to make it prohibitively expensive. That means increase the costs and decrease the return on investment.
I have two suggestions. Don't respond in the first place. I'm sure noone reading this comment ever responds to spam, but I have friends who DO respond to spam (especially chain letters), and I tell them over and over not to. Ah well... My other suggestion is to come up with a way for the recipient of a message to "charge" the sender if the sender doesn't have some kind of proof that the recipient approved the sender for sending at some time. Cryptography could help out with this stuff. Of course, if we all used PGP or GPG and refused unsigned mail, that would pretty much cinch it. What spammer is going to identify themselves? Unfortunately noone I know uses either of these.
I run a free email server, and we have very little spam that actually goes through our system. We have gone to a lot of trouble to make sure that we aren't seen as a big spam haven. We have had almost no complaints concerning spam from our users. The problem we get is a spammer will use an open relay and send a mass spam to all the address in some public LDAP address book, and he will put in his from field an address on our system that he doesn't even check. Most of them don't notice when the account is disabled. My gripe is that I spend more time taking care of the people that this spammer has offended than I do taking care of our users. It is a very big problem and should definitly be illegal. I really do think that they should have to pay. They have cost us many many hours fighting against it, and have hurt our good name.
Anyways...thats my gripe....
If telemarketers can be told to not call again (and legally they have to comply) then the same should be true of spam. After reading the specifics of the lawsuit, I think the judge was absolutely correct. The company that was spamming declined to respond to repeated requests and legal documents. Hopefully this will scare some of spammers out there.
I would rather get 100 spams a day then 1 piece of junk mail. Spam is annoying, but junk mail is harmfull.
The end of the article clearly states that the defendents did not retain counsel. If they had, the results very likely would have been different.
The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) is busy right now trying to buy as many congresscritters as possible to make spamming legal. You think the problem is bad now? Wait until the legislature makes it legal to do it, then see if email is usable at all.
Spamming should be in the same category as junk fax. The law (47 USC 227) says that you can sue (small claims court is good) someone who sends you an unsolicited junk fax.
Frankly, I'm inclined to jail the spammers. A suitable penalty would be 1 hour per spam message sent. Second offenders get 5 years, no parole. Third offenders get life without parole.
I think the more lawsuits that come about the less likely businesses will use spam as a form of advertising. I also get lazer printer spam, I own a bubble jet.
Microsoft aggravates my tourettes syndrome.
I remember when all of the DoS attacks for linux/windows came out. Like winnuke teardrop etc.. We used to keep a shell open so when we received a fresh hunk of spam in our inbox, we could look at the email headers and track down the dialup that sent the spam. The would get a nice fragmented packet in return. It was all most like an on going game of Quake at the time. ping was used to confirm the kill. =)
Microsoft aggravates my tourettes syndrome.
Do you actually think these guys are gonna pay? After reading the article I could only laugh to myself. Every legal attempt that was made was laughed off by these guys! Your getting sued by AOL and you don't retain counsel??? Something tells me these guys are now living on the West Coast with new names.
Flamebait? Moderators are more biased than I thought. Just cuz someone disagrees with CmdrTaco doesn't make it a flamebait. Get some REAL moderators for a change, not script kiddies behind the big red button.
Anyone involved in preying on those dying of cancer does not get any of my sympathy.
and wipe it out.
It wastes my time, it wastes my ISP's time. It wastes bandwidth.
All sending an unsolicted email to me does is ensure that I will never ever buy your products or deal with your company.
My main email address now these days gets more spam them personal mail. So much so I can't use it anymore, and I use it as a spam trap.
It's getting to the point where I'm going to start ringing up the freephone numbers in these emails and start trying to sell them stuff (while taking as long as possible).
Considering that 99.9% of people hate recieving spam emails, my question is why do they keep sending it? I didn't major in marketing but it seems to me if you're trying to sell something the last thing you want to do is piss off the very people you're trying to sell to. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
See The Suespammers Project.
Tankyouveddymuch.
--Tom Geller, Founder, The Suespammers Project.
Tom Geller
Several years ago I worked for Netcom.com. I raised the point on several occassions that the users needed a away to block spam themselves, perhaps via a web interface that allowed them to block speciffic address and domains. No one seemed the least bit interrested. I have another friend that works at a big ISP, when I mention it to the people that work there, they are just like...."ugh send it to suggestions@ISP.com" Read as, ignore. Thier engineers could actually spend a week and make mailsever interface for the users, but OOooo No. It's more important that they make custom animated gifs and bookmark files for Netscape and other worthless crap no one cares about. I guess the lesson I fail to learn time and time again is that, it's not about customer service, it's about marking propoganda. Perhaps the answer is to make ISP's a public utility and subject to the PUC. At least a yahoo, you can block speciffic email address, but you still can't block domains or countrys.
Our ISP recently became an indirect victim of spammer(s) apparently coming from IDIRECT.COM. The spammers apparently delivered their PORN SPAM to Hotmail users, using our domain name! Our abuse@ address got a whole lot of complaints, and of course it ruin yours name too...
By now, I was sure someone would have mentioned the URL above. But I didn't see it, so I figured I might as well.
;)
It's a site run by a fellow who, in addition to being an anti-spam sort, is a P.R. flack (or something like that) - interesting combination. He collects information on what places have laws impacting spam, and cases that have been brought under those laws.
(This doesn't include the plain ol' theft, forgery etc. laws which have always applied.
The response I got (and with which I can aruge little) is that the dangled carrot does not motivate people to action...but the stick does. I definitely think Spammers should get the stick!
I dunno...maybe the money could go to some charity or something like that...
Que Deus te de em dobro o que me desejas
[May God give you double that which you wish for me]
Yes, I know there's a difference, but you can't have it both ways, which is why everyday we argue our way towards a compromise.
Personally, I almost never recieve any spam by email... I get more through ICQ now (but that's dropped off recently too).
"God does not play dice with the universe." -Albert Einstein
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
Wow! This didn't make it into the infamous "Your rights online" bundle?! What's up with that!?
I guess Spammers don't have rights. I mean regardless of whether or not people hate Spam, and whether or not there are existing laws against it, and whether or not there are utils and programs to filter said spam, wouldn't this count as a type of "Free Speech?"
Just playing Devil's Advocate here. Spam is annoying, but so long as they just send me text (no pictures, no macros, etc) I'm content with just deleting it (I actually have an e-mail account that I only use on websites that I'm pretty sure will send me spam). With my extensive set of inbox rules everything important is filtered to it's appropriate folder, everything else is thrown in to be read or deleted at my leisure.
Did someone say "queen?" Well, I guess that makes this totally on topic!
Her Majesty
Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl but she
doesn't have a lot to say.
Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl but she
changes from day to day.
I wanna tell her that I love her a lot,
but I gotta get a belly full of wine.
Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl,
someday I'm gonna make her mine - Oh yeah,
someday I'm gonna make her mine.
Making spam illegal isn't going to do much, if anything.. murder is illegal, and I'm sure that doesn't stop anyone... I don't kill not because of the laws against it, but because it's against my ethics and morals... We're never going to eradicate spam... though, I do wish for the day when we don't have to use john-AT-NOSPAM-email-DOT-com for our addresses 'round /.
Devilled Eggs - A disturbing little creation of mine.
- But I might tup a lawyer soon?
- But I might take a legal stance?
- But I make the absolutely loveliest statues?
- belching in my turbid aliotropic lateral sypnapses?
- But I make trolling a listener sport?
Was bedeutet "BIMTALS"?--
If R is the set of all sets which don't contain themselves, does R contain itself?
http://www.tiac.net/users/smiths/privacy/wbfaq.htm
Sam Khouri is easily my least favorite spammer due to his sheer persistence. Why won't he die? Why hasn't he been shut down yet? I've contacted his email relayers, and his provider. I've auto-redialed his 800 number to run up his phone bill. I've asked friends in Atlanta to harrass him at home. But he keeps on spamming.
Any suggestions from the angry geek crowd?
I regularly get spam sent through AOL's dialups. I've complained several times about it, and I still get spam from them, sometimes the exact same messages (differing headers, same body). It's all well and good that they're suing people for spamming, but they're only interested in preventing their own users from experiencing inconvenience, not in being good citizens of the internet.
They don't remove addresses when called, multiple times. I think we should bring a class action suit against them and make them pay 10% of all future earnings to the FSF!
My fax machine got spammed yesterday for the first time. I remembered that, unlike email spam, fax spam is explicitly illegal, so I went looking around to try and see what to do about this. I found this document on the FCC site.
The bottom line is, you're screwed.
While it is illegal for someone to spam your fax machine, there is realistically not a damned thing you can do about it. You can personally take them to small-claims court for up to $500, but that would take forever, and so few people will ever actually do that that spammers will feel free to do their thing with impunity.
They do mention an ``opt out'' list you can have yourself added to, but of it they say:
Which sounds to me like the DMA sells this list to spammers. So we're to believe that there are spammers out there who would pay money for a list of people who do not want to receive their services. Huh? Forgive me if I have a hard time seeing the motivation there.
$600k is not enuf...
There is a sollution, ya know...
I signed on with a "free of charge" internet provider recently, they gave me an option, which kind of commercial mail I was interrested in and which not... I don't mind receiving commercial mail, 'bout the cheapest K7-700 system, or the latest cheap DVD's, just stay out of my fuckin' mail box with those Chinese Big5 adds (can't read chinese anyway) and the hottest slut I've ever seen (always like 50+ orso anyway, 'kay make that 40) and also *DON'T* wanna know how to get rich fast (and die early).. Just wanna die like a (relative) poor old geek, as will happen to Alan and Linus probably.. (Unless Metasomething is the chicken with the gold eggs)..
Just my 2 eurocents...
Then, the cost of Spam is taken directly out of your pocket.
Some free speech.
There is software which will take you step by step on how to do this for fax spammers, and telephone solicitors(telco spammers?).Sadly I can not remember the name of that software, aarrggh. oh well, Good Luck.
I let her figure out most of the stuff just to see what it is like for a newbie these days(my newbie period was many years ago). At first she read all the eMails, spam and otherwise, and check out the sites mentioned.
Now she recognizes spam for what it is and deletes it.
Will spam be a good tool against her in the future? NO. but to the millions of people to whom this is still new, it will work.
Now if I can stop my brother from forwarding me every new(to him)joke he gets, I'll be doing allright;) actually, he knows how I feel about it, so I think he does it to get my goat.
If over advertising was bad, there wouldn't be so many car commercials.
No, AOL should keep their money, and the spammers should have to give the recipients money as well (not to mention every relay provider they used to bounce their mail from).
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Actually you should just set up an autodialer, and let your computer try to sell them stuff, over and over and over for about a month.
c'mon 5 years for spam? please. 6 month's of weekends doing "clean-up" for the state should be enough.,p. it's cheaper, more realistic(not the same as a violent rapist), actually has a benefit to the people(clean roads), and it is really anoying.,p. It should be applied to the board of directors for the comapny as a whole. this has a much better chance of succeeding the your "jail for life" mentality.
Seriously though, why is this a civil matter, rather than a criminal one?
That's why it shouldn't be a civil matter. Although I am against excessive government regulation of the Internet, governmental traffic cops may be the answer. The Internet, for all intents and purposes, is a public infrastructure. The conduct of behavior on the internet should be enforced just as the rules of the road are enforced by the police.
I'd separate chain letters from UCE. To me there's a really substantial difference between commercial spam and commercial spammers, and people being idiots. I'm constantly annoyed and driven to distraction (maybe not _constantly_) by people, particularly friends, being idiots and forwarding lists of jokes or chain letters or chain 'inspiring emails' etc. ad nauseam. Yet for commercial Email I go after the spammers and try to get their accounts pulled (have killed 16 as of today), something which I would never do to a poor newbie fool forwarding stupid things because they don't know any better.
Here we have AOL suing spammers? AOL, who daily bombards their *paying* members with a ton of advertisements on practically every window? AOL, who "offer" their members telephone calls, mailings, etc., to convey 'special offers' unless the member specifically declines them? AOL, who pushes a new 'feature' in the form of a pop-up window chock full of ads that includes a search engine, just so they can say it does something? AOL, who has flooded our nation with a sea of disks in the mail, inside cereal, magazines, and even meat products (not SPAM, no :) ), decides to sue a spammer?? I'm sorry, but this is just too much hypocrisy to take in one sitting. You know what is probably next? AOL will send their members a long email detailing their victory over spam...with a little 'special offer' for their members to celebrate with. Visit my anti-AOL site, if you wish: http://anti-aol.org
Why does AOL suck? http://www.anti-aol.org/
All I have to say about this is congratulations AOL. It's about time somebody has done something about spamming. I'm so sick of checking my email and finding "100 new messages." And then every time you sign up for something on the net, you have to wonder how many more emails you'll have to wade through because of it. So hat's off to AOL for finally doing something to put a stop to this. Hopefully this lawsuit will spur more action being taken to put a stop to spamming. Thanks AOL... -Bay
Jason Vale, the spammer behind this, has a long history of not only net abuse (which includes joe-jobbing, DoS attacks and the like,) but his Latreile-selling operation is essentially pure, unadulterated medical quackery... essentially he's trying to tell people that cyanide cures cancer. Several of my online colleagues have been tracking his exploits for well over a year, and we've found little to suggest that he is anything more than net scum. The site our group uses as it's base of operations is the the MMF Hall of Humiliation, devoted primarily to elimination of pyramid scams on the Internet, but we also branch into other areas of antispam activities. We'd be more than happy to see the FDA lock this guy away for a long time.
Windows is not a virus. Viruses actually do something.
BAntiSpammerFH motto: "Why hide from spam when you can go out and have the spammers killed?" :) (please don't be a fscking idiot about it, tho- forwarded lists of jokes are not commercial spam, they are some friend of yours being a luser. Spam goes to huge monster lists of addresses, it's not merely email you don't like.)
a0l and others in the past havent frivolously sued all spammers. a0l specifically has targeted spammers who have pretended to be associated with it.
As an ISP owner, I'm delighted to see AOL sets an example for this spammer. Even $600K is a pocket change to AOL, but it is considered as a victory for ISPs and companies who run their own mail servers.
-
...The remaining top events of the millennium include: the
However, spamming is a serious matter. To educate yourself on how to sue the spammers, please check out this excellent web site:
http://www.suespammers.org
By the way, feel free to send junk Email to this stupid spammer (which they sent this annoying religion message to all Email customers on our servers recently):
"Baptist Information Service"
christiannews87@hotmail.com
Somehow, they got over several thousands email addresses from our customers, plus other ISPs and companies who received these message as shown below.
Robert
-----------------------------------------------
BAPTIST INFORMATION SERVICE: Weekly E-mail Update
Vol. 3, Issue #47, December 13, 1999
FIGHTING ABSURDITY BY BEING ABSURD!
Editor: Pastor/Evangelist Edward R. DeVries, D.Min., Th.D.
Associate Editor: Brother Tim Stowe
Contributing News Editor: Brother Kevin P. Murphy
"A magazine which is not outspoken, and is destitute of
principle, is a literary nuisance." -- Charles Haddon Spurgeon
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Section One: NEWS & VIEWS
Section Two: QUOTE OF THE WEEK
Section Three: HUMOR
Section Four: CHURCH IN NEED OF PASTOR OR STAFF*
Section Five: DR. DEVRIES' COLUMN
Section Six: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS*
Section Seven: PROMOTING THE WORK OF GOD*
Section Eight: ARTICLES BY OUR READERS*
Section Nine: BRAND NEW AND JUST IN TIME FOR
CHRISTMAS
Section Ten: IT TAKES A VILLAGE by Glenn Conjurske
Section Eleven: THE NEW SCHOOL PRAYER by an Unknown
Author
Section Twelve: NEWS & VIEWS CONTINUED
Section Thirteen: SERMON OF THE WEEK
===============
NEWS & VIEWS
===============
CONGRESSMAN THREATENS CHRISTIANS
"U.S. congressman Jim McDermott. . . Democrat has thrown
himself into a controversy over Southern Baptist prayer guides
for the conversion of Hindus, and he has even put the weight of
his congressional office behind his mission. But the
congressman's
mission is not what one might expect of a man who graduated in
1958 from the
evangelical Wheaton College. . . Mr. McDermott, in an Oct. 28
'Dear Colleague' letter distributed to all 434 of his fellow
House members, charged Southern Baptists with 'an aggressive,
intolerant approach' and 'an intolerant view that has inflamed
Hindu
communities worldwide.' Mr. McDermott's letter, sent on
official congressional stationery, called on fellow House
members to join his effort to urge Southern Baptists to 'end your
conversion campaign directed to members of the Hindu faith.'
On Nov. 5, the congressman sent a slightly less hysterical
letter, signed by six other members of Congress, to Morris
Chapman, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's
Executive Committee. Nevertheless, the toned-down letter
included this ominous statement: 'We cannot understand how
men and women, raised and educated in the world's bastion of
religious freedom and tolerance, can characterize another
religion as spiritually dark and false. The lack of respect that
this statement shows for the basic rights of an individual to
believe in whatever faith they choose is perhaps the most
disturbing.'
From World Magazine, Dec. 18, 1999. For the full article, go
to:
http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/12-18-
99/national_1.asp" (Bible Believer's Newsletter, December 11,
1999)
NEW STUDY CONFIRMS DANGERS OF ALCOHOL
"According to a study released Tuesday, teens who drink or
use drugs are much more likely to have sex at a younger age and
have more sexual partners than teens who don't use alcohol or
drugs. Teens who drink and are 14 and younger are twice as
likely to have sex as those in the same age group who don't.
The risk doubles for 14-year-old teens who use drugs, said
the report from the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University. Kids who are in their mid-to late- teens
who drink are seven times as likely to have intercourse as teens
who don't drink. They are also twice as likely to have sex with
four or more partners. Older teens who use drugs are five times
as likely to have intercourse as nonusers and they are three times
as likely to have sex with four or more partners." (Bible
Believer's Newsletter, December 11, 1999)
DELECTABLE CHOCOLATE APPLES
Searching for that unique gift? Give the gift you would love to
eat....Picture the largest, freshest apple you have ever seen. Then
drench it with mouth-watering layers of homemade creamy
caramel, the finest milk and white chocolate, and several
varieties of fancy nuts and toppings. All put together, it's the
most elegant, edible creation.
http://www.heavensentbears.com/chocolate.html (Paid
Advertisement, 2/7/00)
1 IN 9 AMERICANS HAVE NO RELIGION
"One out of every nine Americans does not belong to any
organized religion, according to a four-year study of the
religious orientation of adult residents of the United States
conducted by Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio
University. People who answer 'none' when asked their
religious preference tend to be male, young, urban and single,
the study indicated. At least 24 million American adults do not
belong to any organized religious institution, making them
second in number only to Roman Catholics if they
were counted as a specific religious group." (Bible Believer's
Newsletter, December 11, 1999)
IF THE WORLD'S POPULATION WAS ONLY 1000 PEOPLE
"There are roughly 6 billion souls on earth. If we were to
reduce the world population to a village of 1000 inhabitants
with all existing human ratios remaining the same then:
Gender- 520 Woman | 480 Men
Nationalities- 584 Asians | 124 Africans | 84 Latin
Americans | 95 Eastern/Western Europeans | 55 Russians | 52
North Americans | 4 Australians | 2 New Zealanders
Languages- 165 Mandarin | 86 English | 83 Hindi | 64
Spanish | 58 Russian | 37 Arabic
Misc.- 200 people control 75% of the wealth. Another 200
receive only 2% of the wealth. 70 of the 1000 people own
automobiles (But of those 70 some own more then one). About
one-third of the people have access to clean, safe drinking
water. 335 of the adults are illiterate." (Bible Believer's
Newsletter, December 11, 1999)
ARE YOU TIRED OF HIGH LONG DISTANCE RATES?
How does 6.9 cents per minute 24/7 sound? This includes 6
second billing. This offer includes a FREE True 800 service at
only 6.9 cents per minute and FREE Calling cards at only 14.9
cents per minute.
To take advantage of these savings for your home, business,
or church call 1-877-534-6264 and enter Red ID # 133317.
CALL NOW to switch your service. No 10-10 numbers. NO
HASSLE." (Paid Advertisement, 12/20)
SEEKING SIMPLICITY THIS CHRISTMAS?
"The vast majority of Americans feel the holidays have
become too commercial, and 58 percent say they have tried to
simplify their holiday celebrations, a new poll shows.
___The poll of 1,015 adults across the country was
commissioned by the Center for a New American Dream, a non-
profit organization based in Takoma Park, Md.
___It found 91 percent of Americans think the holidays are too
commercialized and the idea of 'peace on earth' has been
forgotten by too many people.
___The study indicates people are starting to act on those
sentiments, with three out of five saying they have started to buy
fewer gifts or simplify their celebration in other ways." (Baptist
Standard, December 8, 1999)
SOUTHERN BAPTISTS FINALLY VOTE TO BELIEVE
BIBLE
"Following two years of quiet convention meetings,
Louisiana Baptists. . . Departing from a tradition . . . succeeded
in passing a resolution placing the state convention on record,
for the FIRST time, as affirming the Bible is literally true. The
non-binding resolution affirmed . . . the Bible as the 'inspired,
infallible, inerrant and sufficient word of God.'
___Earlier, the convention fell just short of casting a required
two-thirds vote that would have added similar language to the
convention's bylaws." (Baptist Standard, December 8, 1999)
Editor's Note [Stowe]: The Southern Baptist state convention of
Louisiana has been in existence for HOW MANY decades? And
they just now finally decide that they want to believe the Bible?
But notice that it is only a "non-binding resolution." Thus, if
your church is in Louisiana and does NOT believe the Bible you
will still be welcome (along with your $$$$$) in the Baptist
Convention.
Now I remember why I am an independent Baptist.
INSPIRATIONAL ART
Website with very affordable framed inspirational art -
http://www.mainlypictures.com These pictures make great gifts
for just about anybody. We offer a variety of prints with a
variety of KJV Scripture verses, or songs, with the prints.
Check the site out - if you don't see what you like, call us and
we can probably get it for you. Discounts offered for quantity
orders. http://www.mainlypictures.com (Paid Advertisement,
12/27)
APOSTATE "BAPTISTS" JOIN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
"The 125-church Alliance of Baptists has been declared eligible
to become the 36th member communion of the National Council
of Churches. A Nov. 10 vote by the NCC General Assembly sets
the stage for a final vote next year establishing formal
membership and seating an Alliance delegation. The Alliance of
Baptists, with an aggregate church membership of 60,000, was
established in 1986 to protest actions of conservatives who at
the time were gaining control of the Southern Baptist
Convention." (Baptist Standard, December 8, 1999)
EXXON/MOBIL MAKES A HISTORIC DECISION:
"The recently completed Exxon/Mobil merger should result
in the world's premier petroleum and petrochemical company.
However, one of the initial policy moves by
the mega company has caused a firestorm of controversy. The
company has decided to discontinue Mobil's guidelines of
giving 'domestic partner' benefits to homosexual partners of
employees. Exxon Corp. did not have a domestic-partner
benefit program.
Homosexual groups have reacted angrily to the decision.
Walter Schuber, founder and chairman of the Gay Financial
Network, said, 'Exxon has taken a step backward. It is
unfortunate and we are dismayed to learn that, rather than accept
and learn from the honor-worthy policies put in place by Mobil,
which understood and recognized the needs of its gay and
lesbian employees.'
Of course, I believe Exxon/Mobil has adopted sound
policy. . . A host of mainline
companies have adopted domestic-partner policies in recent
years. Therefore, Exxon/Mobil's decision is a major and rare
victory for traditional marriage. I want to encourage all of my
friends to thank Exxon/Mobil for this courageous decision. To
do so, you may call (972-444-1000), fax (972-444-1348) or e-
mail (www.exxon.com) the company." (E-mail from Dr. Jerry
Falwell)
NEW BOOK ON MARRIAGE & DIVORCE
"Making a Difference" by Pastor William Nicholson is a
MUST read for any Christian considering divorce or for those
who have already suffered the trauma of marital failure.
"Making A Difference" is a biblically sound and conclusive
argument for the right of remarriage and the opportunity for
ministry to the victims of divorce.
Pastor Nicholson's book discusses: The real causes of
divorce, The nature and purpose of marriage, The Biblical right
to divorce and remarry, Jesus and the "exception clauses,"
Paul's teaching on divorce, Hope and encouragement to the
innocent victims of divorce, Heresy and Harm of the no
divorce or remarriage teaching.
Order on the web at www.inkweb.com/divorce (Paid
Advertisement, 12/27)
SOLDIER GUILTY OF MURDER
"Thursday's newspapers were filled with headlines reporting
that Pvt. Calvin Glover faced the possibility of life in prison
without parole after being found guilty of the beating death of
Pfc. Barry Winchell, who was homosexual.
In court-martial proceedings, defense lawyers said that
Glover was coerced into beating Winchell by Spc. Justin Fisher,
who allegedly organized the baseball bat attack on the young
soldier.
This horrifying beating is a real tragedy. Any time an
individual is attacked or persecuted - no matter what lifestyle
they have adopted - it is a heartbreaking calamity for us, as a
nation. I believe both Glover and Fisher should be prosecuted
to the fullest extent of the law, which means probable
execution.
However, as the media recounts the brutal and distressing
murder of Barry Winchell, I cannot help but notice the media's
continued disregard of an equally brutal murder
that recently took place in Rogers, Arkansas. There, a 13-year-
old boy named Jesse Dirkhising was sadistically raped and
murdered by two homosexual men. The national media has been
strangely silent regarding the boy's slaying. Conservative
columnist Brent Bozell recently stated, 'Had Jesse Dirkhising
been shot inside his Arkansas
school, he would have been an immediate national news story.
Had he been openly gay and his attackers heterosexual, the
crime would have led all the networks. But no liberal media
outlet would dare be the first to tell a grisly murder story which
has as its villains two gay men.'
The January issue of my National Liberty Journal features a
full account of the Jesse Dirkhising murder. It is an important
story because the national media is manipulating this issue in
favor of politically-correct hate crimes legislation. It appears
there are no more level playing fields in regard to the news
media today." (E-mail from Dr. Jerry Falwell)
GLOBALISTS HATE AMERICAN HERITAGE
"Some lawmakers in New Jersey fiercely oppose a proposed
bill that would require students to recite the first two sentences
in the Declaration of Independence. 'Outmoded,' 'racist,' 'sexist,'
'offensive,' and 'dangerous' are among the words being used to
describe the sentences [of the Declaration of Independence].
The historic sentences begin, 'We hold these truths to be self-
evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain inalienable rights.'" (CNV News
Service 12/10/99)
NEARER MY GOD TO THEE
Come hear an audio reading by Misty Taggart, creator of the
journaling course Ordinary Woman/Extraordinary God, "A
lighthearted look at Christian Life for today's
woman." Misty's OWEG Journaling process developed over her
many years of personal journaling . . . and her personal search
for a closer relationship with God. The Free Gallery of Authors'
Voices is pleased to present her reading to you online at
http://fregalry.interspeed.net/owegbymisty.htm. (Paid
Advertisement, 12/13)
HYBRID ELECTRIC/GAS HONDA NOW FOR SALE
"Honda will introduce a hybrid electric-gasoline car this
month for under $20,000 that is capable of getting up to 70 miles
per gallon of gas. The first car of its kind in the United States,
the Insight is unlike vehicles powered exclusively by electricity
because its batteries don't need recharging. Designed from the
ground up, the two-seater coupe employs some exciting new
technology, according to American Honda Motor Company.
The Insight's electric motor draws power from the batteries
to boost engine performance to the level of a 1.5-liter gasoline
engine and also acts as a generator during braking to recharge
the vehicle's batteries. Honda has combined this engine, which it
calls the Integrated Motor Assist (IMA) hybrid system, with a
rigid and lightweight aluminum body structure and advanced
ultra-low emissions technology Honda says its new technology
makes the car the cleanest and most fuel-efficient, gasoline-
powered vehicle ever offered to American consumers.
At the heart of the system is the world's lightest 1.0-liter, 3-
cylinder gasoline automobile engine, which uses lightweight
materials such as aluminum, magnesium and plastic. The electric
component of the IMA system consists of an ultra-thin (60-mm)
DC-brush-less motor, a 144-volt nickel metal-hydride battery
pack and an advanced electronic Power Control Unit (PCU).
A pioneer in the design of aluminum car bodies with its
Acura NSX sports car - the world's first mass-produced
aluminum-bodied vehicle - Honda has created a new type of
lightweight aluminum body that offers a high level of body
rigidity and advanced safety performance. This unique 'hybrid'
aluminum chassis uses a combination of extruded, stamped and
die cast aluminum components to minimize weight while
optimizing rigidity and safety Body weight is 40 percent less
than a comparable steel body.
Most of the vehicle's body panels are aluminum, which are
lighter yet more rigid than traditional steel panels. Front fenders
and rear fender skirts are made of recyclable plastic. Other
weight-saving features include aluminum-alloy wheels, a
magnesium oil pan and plastic head cover. Honda says the
Insight will come with standard equipment that includes anti-
lock brakes, electric power steering, dual air bags, AM/FM
stereo cassette, power windows and mirrors, power door locks
with keyless entry and an anti-theft immobliizer system."
(TEXAS CO-OP POWER, December 1999)
HINDU MOBS RIOT BUT SBC PRESSES ON
"Despite Hindu opposition, the Southern Baptist Convention . . .
has released a prayer guide for Hindu evangelism in time for
Divali, the Hindu Festival of Lights." (Christianity Today,
December 6, 1999)
COPIERS, FAXES, SUPPLIES WHOLESALE FOR BIBLE
MINISTRIES
Please let me help save your church and ministry valuable
dollars that could be used instead to win lost souls to Christ.
Special discount prices are available for Bible believing
ministries. Copiers, fax machines and supplies for copying and
printing equipment are available at wholesale costs. Also
available are a full line of do-it-yourself refill inkjet kits which
will save hundreds of dollars in expensive cartridge
replacements. Please contact Missionary/Evangelist Avery L.
Smith at go-copy@juno.com for more information. (Paid
Advertisement, 12-13)
JUST FOR ADULTERERS
"A new business, based in Lancashire, England, but
worldwide in scope, helps adulterers hide their affairs . . . The
Alibi Agency, for a price, helps customers cover their tracks
with such services as providing false invitations and make-
believe hotel clerks or receptionists.
Forty percent of the clients reportedly are women." (Pulpit
Helps, December 1999)
QUEERS TARGETING OUR KIDS
"Homosexuals will become more acceptable to students,
especially elementary ones, if a conference sponsored recently
by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)
fulfills its goals. . . GLSEN Executive Director Kevin Jennings
said at a three-day meeting his organization would be
'shameless' in promoting pro-homosexual programs to all
15,000 schools in the country. . . 'If we do our jobs right, were
going to raise a generation of kids who don't believe the
religious right.'" (Pulpit Helps, December 1999)
LAST CHANCE TO PREPARE FOR Y2K
If Y2K causes a last-minute bank run will you get to the bank
in time? If the government prints billions in new paper to cover
the bank run will your money be safe from the effects of
inflation?
With or without Y2K the U.S. will soon experience the same
global depression that has Russians, Indonesians, Koreans and
South Americans begging in the streets - Are you economically
prepared for a depression?
Even if Y2K does not devastate America, panic may be
enough to force bank runs and other economic downturns. Learn
to protect your savings now!
Russia, Indonesia, Brazil, Japan, and other nations have gone
from prosperity to depression in just three years. The crashing
of their markets has already weakened our own. Even without
Y2K the effects of the spreading global depression WILL reach
the United States by 2001. You need to learn how to protect
your economic future.
Everyone in the English speaking world needs this special
report. U.S. residents send $5 to: Y2K Report, P.O. Box 603,
Waller, TX 77484. Orders outside the U.S. send $20 payable in
United States currency. This all-inclusive guide will tell you
everything you need to know in order to survive bank runs, the
devaluation of currency, total bank collapse, surviving in a
world without electricity, foraging for wild foods, and much
more. Learn how to protect your savings in the event that all
banks and brokerages should loose records. (Paid
Advertisement)
PROBOBILITY OF PROFESSING FAITH
"The probability of people accepting Jesus Christ as Savior
drops off dramatically after age 14, a new study by the Barna
Research Group has found.
Data from a nationwide representative sampling of more than
4,200 young people and adults indicate that youth from ages 5
through 13 have a 32 percent probability of accepting Christ as
Savior. Young people from the ages of 14 through 18 have a 4
percent likelihood of making that choice, while adults ages 19
and older have a 6 percent probability of doing so.
The data challenge the widely held notion that the teenage
years are a prime time for evangelistic activity.
'The statistics are eye-opening because they show how little
evangelistic impact we are having in America upon teenagers
and adults,' said George Barna, president of the evangelical
Christian firm. 'However, that does not mean teenagers and
adults cannot be reached with the gospel. It simply challenges
the approaches currently used to reach those individuals.'
Over the years, other Barna studies have shown that a large
majority of Christians accept Jesus Christ as Savior before
reaching the age of 18. This study specifically calculates
people's probability of doing so at different stages of life.
Barna also said his firm's research 'has consistently shown
that between the ages of 18 and 24, we lose a very large
percentage of young people who had been regulars at church.'
The latest research was based on three surveys of adults and
two surveys of youths." (Baptist Standard, December 1, 1999)
"CHRISTAIN" SONGS OR WORLDLY MUSIC?
"A Latin single by Christian music artist Jaci Velasquez has
topped Billboard's 'Hot Latin Tracks,' marking the first time a
Christian artist has topped that list. 'Llegar A Ti' reached the
No. 1 position during the first week in November. It is the title
song on Velasquez's third album, also titled 'Llegar A Ti.' An
English version of the song, titled 'Love Will Find You,' is
featured in the motion picture soundtrack for 'Music of the
Heart.'" (Baptist Standard, December 1, 1999)
INDEPENDENT BAPTIST CHURCH NEEDS PASTOR
Contact joethebaptist@yahoo.com (361) 592-6378. Heritage
Baptist Church, 309 E. Henrietta; Kingsville, Texas 78363.
We are looking for an old-fashioned, KJV-only, soul-
winning preacher. We can pay some expenses and will
eventually offer a salary as the church grows. At the moment we
do not have a parsonage but we can help with a partial rent
allowance. (Paid Advertisement, 1/3)
"CHRISTIAN" ARM OF NEW WORLD ORDER MOVING
"Christian Coalition officials have announced plans to relocate
from Virginia Beach, Va., to the Washington, D.C., area. The
organization said relocation happen soon and would help the . . .
political organization work more effectively." (Baptist
Standard, December 1, 1999)
SOUTHERN BAPTIST ISP
"LifeWay Christian Resources will begin offering filtered
access to the Internet via 'LifeWayonline' Dec. 1. The Southern
Baptist Convention agency is partnering with Rated-G Online,
an established Internet service provider. The service will filter
out more than 20 categories of potentially offensive material.
The monthly service fee will be $19.95. For information or to
subscribe, call (888) 454-5965 or go to
www.lifewayonline.com" (Baptist Standard, December 1,
1999)
FREE TAPE ON DISCOURAGEMENT
I'm an Independent Baptist preacher of thirty years, after many
days of discouragement GOD burned this truth in my soul, when
I thought I would never get up again. To order, E-mail
easy@cafes.net and leave your address.
http://www.johnnythebaptist.org (Paid Advertisement, 12/27)
PUBLIC SCHOOL "EDUCATED" PSYCHO-MURDERERS
"At least five students were wounded, and a 13-year-old boy
was taken into custody on Monday, following a shooting at a
middle school about 50 miles southeast of Tulsa, police said.
School Superintendent Steve Wilmoth told CNN the incident
took place around
8 a.m. -- before classes started -- and that the alleged shooter
was a student at the school. Wilmoth said he was not aware of
any problems with the suspect. A 9mm handgun was recovered,
police said.
The victims included a 12-year-girl who was shot in the right
cheek, a St. Francis Medical Center spokeswoman told CNN.
The girl was listed in fair condition.
A 12-year-old boy was being treated for two gunshot wounds
-- one in each
arm, officials at Tulsa Regional Medical Center said. The
victim was in fair and stable condition, officials said.
Two 13-year-old males were taken to Muskogee Regional
Medical Center, officials said. One had a gunshot wound to the
forearm and the other had a gunshot wound to the leg. Both were
listed in stable condition. The condition of the fifth student was
not known." (CNN, December 6, 1999)
Editor's Note [DeVries]: Why is it that we are always hearing
about public school shootings but we have NEVER heard of a
student in a Christian school getting off the bus, walking into the
building, opening his backpack, pulling out a gun, and shooting
the place up? I have never heard of a homeschooler shooting his
parents.
If such an incident were to happen in a Christian setting I
guarantee the media would be on it like flies on dung or stink on
a dog. So the fact we have not seen it on the news means it has
NOT happened. Yet it seems PUBLIC school shootings are
becoming a WEEKLY event. Why is this?
Could it be because, unlike in the public schools, the
teaching of religion in the Christian schools (and home schools);
the teaching of the Bible, the inclusion of prayer, the
memorization of the 10 commandments, etc.; is creating a
product (i.e. students) with CHARACTER whereas the
secularized public schools, with their philosophy and agenda,
are creating PSYCHOPATHIC, DRUG ADDICTED (Prozac,
Ritilin, Crack, etc.), MURDEROUS MONSTERS? I say so!
Not to say the day will never come when a student in a
Christian school pulls out a gun and starts mowing down
everything in site. No doubt, once the political advantage has
been realized, the same government agents who blew up the
federal building in Oklahoma City will send a kid into a
Christian School with an automatic pistol and a dozen clips full
of ammo. But I do say that the odds of your kid being molded
into a psycho-killer in a public school, or worse, becoming the
victim of one, are pretty good (and increasing by the day) in the
public school, slim to none in the Christian school, and
basically nonexistent in the home school.
So as this year is about to end and in a few weeks a new
semester of school begins, I ask: What do you want for your
children? Where will you be sending them to school next
semester?
But you say, "We live in a small town." "Our school is
different." The parents in Jonesbboro, AR a small town said
the same thing. So I ask again: Where will you be sending them
to school next semester?
But you say, "We have some Christian teachers in our public
school." And you also have a Wiccan priestess teaching there. I
ask again: Where will you be sending them to school next
semester?
Or do you want your child to be one more statistic and next
week's "filler" clipping on CNN. Even if you do have a lifelong
dream of being interviewed on TV by Larry King is it worth
sacrificing your child for?
TEAMSTERS SCANDAL MAY REVEAL MORE
"One might think a trial of a major union official, caught in a
fraud and embezzlement scheme that has ties to the president's
chief fund-raiser, would make Page 1 headlines in every major
newspaper in the country and be a top story on every major
network. Such news did happen recently, but got little press ink.
As a result, few know the story...
Go to www.NewsMax.com to check out Christopher Ruddy's
latest story as well as
all the breaking news of the day." (NewsMax, December 6,
1999)
SANTA CLAUS: A FALSE CHRIST
"This week I have posted a message that was quite
controversial last year. Out of a mailing list of over 500
people, I lost about 200 people because of this message. . . It is
against a false Christ in Santa Claus." (Press Release from
http://www.biblearmour.com)
AFFORDABLE HOME BIBLE STUDY
Diploma - Doctorate, E-mail for a FREE catalog
or visit our web site at
http://www.bibleschool.edu (Paid Advertisement)
ANTI-CHRIST RELIGION TO BE LED BY U.N.
"The United Nations will host a world 'spiritual summit' to
promote peace. The Millennium World Peace Summit is the first
meeting of its kind ever sponsored by the world body. It is
expected to bring 1,000 religious and spiritual leaders together
Aug. 28-31, a few days before the world's political leaders
gather for the U.N. Millennium Heads of State Summit. U.N.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan will give the welcoming address
at the religious summit, which is intended to investigate ways
that the religious leaders can ease tension in world zones of
conflict." (Religion Today, December 6, 1999)
MARTIN LUTHER STILL MAKING NEWS
"His challenge to the Roman Catholic Church in 1517, which
brought about the Protestant Reformation, is the most important
religious event of the second millennium, according to a poll
conducted by the Religion Newswriters Association.
The invention of movable type, which allowed the mass
production of Bibles in various languages, and the Great Schism
of 1054, which separated Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism,
were ranked second and third in the poll.
Holocaust and the founding of the modern state of Israel; the first
Crusade in 1095 to liberate the Holy Land from Muslims;
Islam's spread into Africa and Asia; the Second Vatican Council
reforms from 1962-1965; the settlement of Plymouth, Mass., and
the enshrinement of religious freedoms in the Bill of Rights; the
19th century ideas of Freud, Darwin, Marx, and Nietchze that
challenged traditional religious beliefs; and the 1906 Azusa
Street revival that launched the Pentecostal movement, which
today is the fastest growing segment of Christianity, The
Associated Press said.
The top events of the 20th century include the discovery of
the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947; the increase of female clergy
among Protestants and Jews; the increase of radical Islam in the
Middle East and North Africa; John Paul II becoming the first
non-Italian pope in 400 years; the religious-backed civil rights
movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr., and Ghandi's
nonviolent overthrow of British rule in India." (Religion Today,
December 8, 1999)
DO YOUR CHRISTMAS SHOPPING ON-LINE
The on-line bookstore
http://www.bibleschool.edu/bookstor.htm (Paid Advertisement)
DID SANTA SAVE CHRISTMAS?
"Santa Claus has saved Christmas. A federal judge in Cincinnati
ruled this week that Dec. 25 can be observed as a federal
holiday because non-Christians also mark the holiday by
celebrating the arrival of Santa Claus, Reuters said. Since
nonreligious people also observe the holiday, giving federal
workers a day off for Christmas does not elevate one religion
over another, U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott said. She
dismissed a suit brought by Cincinnati attorney Richard Ganulin,
who has vowed to appeal the case with hope that the U.S.
Supreme Court eventually will decide it." (Religion Today,
December 8, 1999)
AN UNEXPECTED MISSION FIELD
"Church attendance and belief in God are at all-time lows and
the number of citizens who profess atheism is up, Conservative
News Service said. Only 8% of Britons regularly attend church,
a 35% drop in 20 years, and the number of professed atheists
has increased from 2% to 27% since 1950. If attendance keeps
dropping at the same rate, most churches will be empty in 20
years, CNS said." (Religion Today, December 8, 1999)
TO PLACE YOUR AD IN A BAPTIST INFORMATION
SERVICE UPDATE
E-mail Ads are $5 each week.
To place an ad, please E-mail ad copy. If your ad is approved
we will provide you with instructions as to how you may pay
for your ad. Our advertisers are reporting that they are receiving
many orders as a result of their advertising in this publication.
=======================
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
=======================
BAPTIST INFORMATION SERVICE updates are free, but a
financial contribution to cover our expenses is always welcome.
Donations make it possible to continue publishing this
newsletter. Please make your checks payable to BAPTIST
INFORMATION SERVICE and mail them to:
PMB #584
602 West Prien Lake Road
Lake Charles, LA 70601
OK, I apologize for posting this, since it is diverging into the realms of "off-topic" and "flamebait" but your post really irritated me.
First, Hawk (as usual) made some good points and followed them up with good arguments. You, however, make wild claims such as "Basic economics do not apply to the net. (Yet.)" without any kind of argument to back up your claim. Both my intuition and my limited knowledge of economics are telling me that your claim seems utterly wrong. Could you please state some kind of argument if you're going to make claims of this sort?
The cost of internet service has gone down. Why is this? Well, probably because of increased demand and a decreased cost for hardware, among a variety of reasons. This seems like economics at work to me. Would internet costs be lower if spam didn't exist? Maybe. The total cost of spam averaged across every ISP account is probably negligible, but I still think it is there. And even if economics does not yet apply to the net, that does not say anything about whether or not economics apply to internet service, which is just another part of our economy, regardless of what the net itself is.
Please, pretty please, clarify/back up your claims if you're going to make them.
Actually to be clear, www.orbs.org is ORBS which is seperate from the MAPS RBL at http://maps.vix.com/rbl/. ORBS seems to be mail-relay centric while http://maps.vix.com hosts a number of services including RBL (which is a last resort type service).