On this front, at least, AOL fights the good fight
on
Suing the Spammers
·
· Score: 1
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 . . .
Seems that the rating you're asked to judge doesn't match the actual rating given to the message. For instance, a message may be rated 'Off-Topic' in the header, but the question below it will read 'The rating of 'Insightful' is . . . '
Or it could be the double burrito with extra green chile I inhaled at lunch, and I'm just confused.
Slashdot Mirror
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 . . .
Seems that the rating you're asked to judge doesn't match the actual rating given to the message. For instance, a message may be rated 'Off-Topic' in the header, but the question below it will read 'The rating of 'Insightful' is . . . '
Or it could be the double burrito with extra green chile I inhaled at lunch, and I'm just confused.