Does anyone have ideas for tracking them down (i.e. local phone number or stateside address)? The message even seems fraudulent, but I cannot file a complaint with the better business bureau without local phone or address. Any ideas?
So, call the number, tell them "Yes, I'm interested in your service", etc. Pretend to be interested. They want to sell you something, so if you pretend to be a potential customer, they *will* contact you, tell you who they are, etc.
True story : My dad has had 5 hip replacements, and is already planning to have a sixth. Now if he were a centipede, that might make sense. I think you're theory above explains a lot.
Great post. I'll submit you for the "most clueless/. user" award. I don't think you'll win, as there are some real nutcases, but you've got a shot at it.
"Clear opt-out instructions."
Now why in the Multiverse would you even need those if you were running confirmed opt-IN to begin with?
Because after being on your list for a week/month/year they may decide that they are no longer interested, or that they don't have time to read the mail, or that they aren't getting what they wanted out of it, or that they don't like your company, or whatever.
Legitimate mailing lists are confirmed opt in - but once you've opted in, you also have a right to say "No thank, remove me."
I don't see how that's any different from now. "Did I sign up for this list? No? Alright, they suck".
With a confirmed opt in system, they may see your message once and think "they suck". But only once.
With the opt out system you claim is the best way to do things, they see your message every day, and every day they think "they suck". And eventually they set up a filter to delete your mail, or they complain to your ISP, or they start forwarding everything you send to SpamCop, because you are sending them crap over and over that *they did not ask for*.
We have had noone complain to us about email abuse, period.
The VAST majority of spam doesn't get reported. Assuming that what you say is true, you don't buy lists of addresses, and you don't harvest addresses. That's good.
But if I went to your site and started signing up other peoples addresses, then every one of those people would be receiving spam until they jump through whatever opt-out hoops you have set up. And people have been told a long time "If you didn't sign up for it, you shouldn't opt out, as that will verify your address and you will receive more spam". And every time you continue to email them, you spam them again.
Your "opt in" is meaningless, because you will let Scott Richter opt me in to *your* mailing list. My mailbox doesn't belong to him, or you. If I want on your list, I'll tell you. If I don't, I shouldn't ahve to beg you to remove me and hope that you are honest enough to both remove the address from your list, and not sell it to some slezebag.
The fact that you say about confirmed opt in "opens itself up to just as much spam as non-confirmed opt-in" shows that you can't understand the difference between receiving one "Is this really you asking to join, please reply" email and day after day after day receiving "Thanks for joining our list - here's what we want to force into your mailbox today".
You say that everyone can opt out if they end up on a list they didn't want to be on, and that you as the emailer should have no responsibility to make sure that the people on your list really wanted to be there.
I get 400+ spams a day. It is not worth my time telling every one of them "Quit". Most wouldn't quit anyway, and some would use that as an excuse to say "Here is an address we know reaches a real person" and sell the address to other spammers. I have personally tested this by trying to opt out with addresses I know are already very public, without it stopping the spam from that company. I've also tested it by opting out using a *brand new address* that had never been used (but telling them "remove this address from your mailing list") and seen spam start coming to that address.
Yet your theory is "everyone should just opt out, legitimate comanies shouldn't have to bother with making sure their mailing lists are clean."
Why do you assume that everyone you disagree with is lying?
I don't. I do, however, know that Scott Richter is lying when he says that all the addresses he mails to are opt-in.
You can pretend that he doesn't have the history he has. But that won't change the history, or the facts. He is a major, long term spammer. The state of NY and Microsoft both filed suits against him recently. He has been known as a spammer for years. He has "hired" his dad to file a lawuit against Spamcop because their job is to say "Here is a spammer, and here are his IP's" and he doesn't like it. His Spamhaus.org listing shows many examples, and more can be found by searching groups.google.com.
When Scotty says he isn't a spammer, his lists are all opt-in, I have my choice between believing him, or *EVERYONE ELSE*. All the evidence tells me that he is a spammer who says he doesn't spam. Yes, I think he is lying.
You just admitted on Slashdot that you believe in opt out, that once someone gets forge subscribed to your list that it's their problem to get off your list, that you have no intentions of using legitimate marketing methods.
Brilliant plan. Here, I'll help with your free advertising campaign. The more people that know, the better!
Or to use my example of Omaha Steaks again... if I suddenly went vegetarian I wouldn't be likely to order from them again, so I'd opt out of the list that, once again, I knowingly and voluntarily opted into a year ago.
Omaha Steaks has a history of sending spam. groups.google.com will help you verify that for yourself. They've spammed me on several occassions. They are not "legitimate" they are scumbags, just like the rest of the spammers. Buying from them makes you part of the problem - you are supporting spammers.
The TRO has been dissolved and an expedited hearing has been scheduled.
http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/3352951
In the order dissolving the TRO, Judge Armstrong said, "The legal issues are more complicated than they originally appeared and the Court has a number of questions regarding the facts." For this reason, the TRO was dissolved and an expedited hearing set for May 18 in which both parties can set forth their arguments regarding the restraint.
I believe that truth is a defense against a charge of slander, but not of libel.
Incorrect. See the link for info:
http://www.ldrc.com/LDRC_Info/libelfaqs.html#What is Libel?
I've had plenty of reason to learn more than I wanted about it. A spammer recently sent a C&D (Cease and Desist) letter over a website that I have about him and his business practices. I took the page down, did some research, made a few adustments that I don't think were necessary just to be sure, and put the page back up. He hates it that if you put "mailwiper" (his company name) into Google, my page is the 3rd hit.:^)
You are correct that many libel suits get filed even when they know they aren't likely to win. Happens all the time. Emarketersamerica.org is a recent example of spammers trying that. They lost their case, looked like idiots, but they did cause the defendents some aggravation and money.
The spammer in my case can still sue me, if he chooses - he just doesn't have a very good chance of winning.
One interesting point is that the first lawyer listed
is Steven S. Richter - Snotty Scotty's daddy. Sounds
like a nice family - lawyers *and* spammers.
I'm sure many of you know, but since I haven't seen it
mentioned in this discussion, I'll point out that
Richter was probably talking to his lawyers before
filing suit on SpamCop. He's being sued by Microsoft
and the New York Attorney General. Trying to cause
trouble is just his way of fighting back. For more
info,
see the article.
As long as he is fully following the federal can spam act rules he is on strong legal grounds.
People have a right to speak, a right to complain. His spam may be legal, but SpamCop also has a right to say "This guy is a spammer, and we recommend that you do not accept mail from his IP addresses."
Richter may not like it - but that doesn't give him any special legal standing. I don't like him, either.
I mean really, would anyone care that much about spam if we stopped getting it from penis pill pushers, vicodin pushers, Nigerian businessmen, and those women who are really horny?
Yes. If all the illegitimate crap ended, and was then replaced by Sears, Microsoft, etc sending ads, it wouldn't change anything - I'd still be getting 400+ spams a day.
There are a *lot* of businesses in the US. If 5% of those businesses sent one spam advertisement per month, then there would be a *lot* of spam.
No, you don't understand the situation. The problem as stated by the *spammer* is that lots of people are complaining about his spam, and the spammer isn't getting to list wash those people, or verify their addresses in order to sell them to other spammers.
The reason ISP's disconnect spammers is that spam is normally against the terms of service/acceptable use policy of the ISP.
Richter does have an option to remedy the situation - he can quit harvesting and buying addresses and sending spam to them. Then the complaints will stop.
Orbitz is selling the scumbags other peoples information, including their credit card information.
If you don't think that's crooked, then I don't *ever* want to do business with you, either.
I would say that contacting customer service before you decide to never use Orbitz again makes more sense. If you are upset enough to not use them again, let them know why. They need to be better informed as to what customers like and don't like. Thats the only way a company can better serve you, the consumer. Without you, there is no company.
I don't think it's our job to tell them why. As far as I'm concerned, they can go out of business and eat their shoes. They are *crooks*, ripping people off. People shouldn't have to tell the crooks "what they like and don't like".
However, if this had happened to me, I'd damn sure call them up and cuss them out.
Prior to 1981, software patents in the US were essentially unknown.
If software patents as used today were in existence when Visicalc came out, then Visicalc would be the only spreadsheet we could use - or every other software manufacturer would have to pay Visicalc for patent rights.
See http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html for some history.
See http://www.bricklin.com/patenting.htm for info on Visicalc and patents.
Slashdot Mirror
So, call the number, tell them "Yes, I'm interested in your service", etc. Pretend to be interested. They want to sell you something, so if you pretend to be a potential customer, they *will* contact you, tell you who they are, etc.
And at that point, you can file on them.
True story : My dad has had 5 hip replacements, and is already planning to have a sixth. Now if he were a centipede, that might make sense. I think you're theory above explains a lot.
Not if they wanted to survive, they couldn't.
Great post. I'll submit you for the "most clueless /. user" award. I don't think you'll win, as there are some real nutcases, but you've got a shot at it.
Because after being on your list for a week/month/year they may decide that they are no longer interested, or that they don't have time to read the mail, or that they aren't getting what they wanted out of it, or that they don't like your company, or whatever.
Legitimate mailing lists are confirmed opt in - but once you've opted in, you also have a right to say "No thank, remove me."
I would think this is obvious. Apparently not.
With a confirmed opt in system, they may see your message once and think "they suck". But only once.
With the opt out system you claim is the best way to do things, they see your message every day, and every day they think "they suck". And eventually they set up a filter to delete your mail, or they complain to your ISP, or they start forwarding everything you send to SpamCop, because you are sending them crap over and over that *they did not ask for*.
The VAST majority of spam doesn't get reported. Assuming that what you say is true, you don't buy lists of addresses, and you don't harvest addresses. That's good.
But if I went to your site and started signing up other peoples addresses, then every one of those people would be receiving spam until they jump through whatever opt-out hoops you have set up. And people have been told a long time "If you didn't sign up for it, you shouldn't opt out, as that will verify your address and you will receive more spam". And every time you continue to email them, you spam them again.
Your "opt in" is meaningless, because you will let Scott Richter opt me in to *your* mailing list. My mailbox doesn't belong to him, or you. If I want on your list, I'll tell you. If I don't, I shouldn't ahve to beg you to remove me and hope that you are honest enough to both remove the address from your list, and not sell it to some slezebag.
The fact that you say about confirmed opt in "opens itself up to just as much spam as non-confirmed opt-in" shows that you can't understand the difference between receiving one "Is this really you asking to join, please reply" email and day after day after day receiving "Thanks for joining our list - here's what we want to force into your mailbox today".
You say that everyone can opt out if they end up on a list they didn't want to be on, and that you as the emailer should have no responsibility to make sure that the people on your list really wanted to be there.
I get 400+ spams a day. It is not worth my time telling every one of them "Quit". Most wouldn't quit anyway, and some would use that as an excuse to say "Here is an address we know reaches a real person" and sell the address to other spammers. I have personally tested this by trying to opt out with addresses I know are already very public, without it stopping the spam from that company. I've also tested it by opting out using a *brand new address* that had never been used (but telling them "remove this address from your mailing list") and seen spam start coming to that address.
Yet your theory is "everyone should just opt out, legitimate comanies shouldn't have to bother with making sure their mailing lists are clean."
I don't. I do, however, know that Scott Richter is lying when he says that all the addresses he mails to are opt-in.
You can pretend that he doesn't have the history he has. But that won't change the history, or the facts. He is a major, long term spammer. The state of NY and Microsoft both filed suits against him recently. He has been known as a spammer for years. He has "hired" his dad to file a lawuit against Spamcop because their job is to say "Here is a spammer, and here are his IP's" and he doesn't like it. His Spamhaus.org listing shows many examples, and more can be found by searching groups.google.com.
When Scotty says he isn't a spammer, his lists are all opt-in, I have my choice between believing him, or *EVERYONE ELSE*. All the evidence tells me that he is a spammer who says he doesn't spam. Yes, I think he is lying.
I don't feel like arguing facts
That's obvious.
Brilliant plan. Here, I'll help with your free advertising campaign. The more people that know, the better!
That's "Bartlett Publishing".
http://www.cafeshops.com/bartlettpublish
http://www.bartlettpublishing.com
Spammers, and proud of it.
Omaha Steaks has a history of sending spam. groups.google.com will help you verify that for yourself. They've spammed me on several occassions. They are not "legitimate" they are scumbags, just like the rest of the spammers. Buying from them makes you part of the problem - you are supporting spammers.
It's 404, Jim.
Rule # 1 : Spammers lie.
http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/3352951
http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/3352951
Incorrect. See the link for info:
http://www.ldrc.com/LDRC_Info/libelfaqs.html#What is Libel?
I've had plenty of reason to learn more than I wanted about it. A spammer recently sent a C&D (Cease and Desist) letter over a website that I have about him and his business practices. I took the page down, did some research, made a few adustments that I don't think were necessary just to be sure, and put the page back up. He hates it that if you put "mailwiper" (his company name) into Google, my page is the 3rd hit. :^)
You are correct that many libel suits get filed even when they know they aren't likely to win. Happens all the time. Emarketersamerica.org is a recent example of spammers trying that. They lost their case, looked like idiots, but they did cause the defendents some aggravation and money.
The spammer in my case can still sue me, if he chooses - he just doesn't have a very good chance of winning.
One interesting point is that the first lawyer listed is Steven S. Richter - Snotty Scotty's daddy. Sounds like a nice family - lawyers *and* spammers.
I'm sure many of you know, but since I haven't seen it mentioned in this discussion, I'll point out that Richter was probably talking to his lawyers before filing suit on SpamCop. He's being sued by Microsoft and the New York Attorney General. Trying to cause trouble is just his way of fighting back. For more info, see the article.
No. If what you are saying is true, it is legal, even if it is criticism.
The "smart lawyer" who is handling this case for Snotty Scotty is is Steve Richter, Snotty's daddy.
People have a right to speak, a right to complain. His spam may be legal, but SpamCop also has a right to say "This guy is a spammer, and we recommend that you do not accept mail from his IP addresses."
Richter may not like it - but that doesn't give him any special legal standing. I don't like him, either.
Yes. If all the illegitimate crap ended, and was then replaced by Sears, Microsoft, etc sending ads, it wouldn't change anything - I'd still be getting 400+ spams a day.
There are a *lot* of businesses in the US. If 5% of those businesses sent one spam advertisement per month, then there would be a *lot* of spam.
It's about consent, not content.
The reason ISP's disconnect spammers is that spam is normally against the terms of service/acceptable use policy of the ISP.
Richter does have an option to remedy the situation - he can quit harvesting and buying addresses and sending spam to them. Then the complaints will stop.
Orbitz is selling the scumbags other peoples information, including their credit card information. If you don't think that's crooked, then I don't *ever* want to do business with you, either.
I don't think it's our job to tell them why. As far as I'm concerned, they can go out of business and eat their shoes. They are *crooks*, ripping people off. People shouldn't have to tell the crooks "what they like and don't like".
However, if this had happened to me, I'd damn sure call them up and cuss them out.
If software patents as used today were in existence when Visicalc came out, then Visicalc would be the only spreadsheet we could use - or every other software manufacturer would have to pay Visicalc for patent rights.
See http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html for some history.
See http://www.bricklin.com/patenting.htm for info on Visicalc and patents.
20 years, which is *forever* in the software development world.