|
Spammers have been suing for a long time now, and courts have
consistantly ruled in the favor of the RBL in question. The only thing
about this that is troublesome so far is the injunction. Keep in mind
that OptInRealBig is being sued by both Microsoft and New York State,
and if we can't block a top 5 spammer at the request of our customers
or identify them as a free public service, we might as well throw in
the towel. I'm not worried though. The shame is that Congress gave an ounce of legidimacy to companies like this one, and that was enough to appearantly confuse the courts. Take note that IronPort owns SpamCop, and I would imagine that the community will come to their aid for fear of this becoming precident setting, which is still highly unlikely. There is a very similar case that Spamhaus recently won in Florida that didn't even make it past the SLAPP laws. You can read about it on their site. Matt Todd Holt wrote: This could have serious implications everywhere on the internet... - When I go to Google and see a person's poor review of a product, then I don't buy that product, is very similar. Google is a third party, the reviewer is a disgruntled user, I'm deciding not to purchase (or use) the product because of this review, and the producer of the product is not allowed to correct the problem before the posting. Shame on you Google!- When I go to Pricescan and see a list of vendors selling a product, but one vendor has a poor Vendor Rating and I don't buy from that vendor. Pricescan is a third party, I choose not to buy from the poorly rated vendor, and I don't see any ability for the vendor to review the source of the poor rating before it's published. Shame on you Pricescan! The only real difference with SpamCop (and similar services) is: 1. The amount of money the spammers will spend on fighting the issue. 2. The amount of money that SpamCop has to defend itself. 3. The speed in which the filtering mechanism occurs (vs. Google, Pricescan) 4. The volume of complaints that can be processed in a short period of time. 5. The lawmaker's lack of understanding of email technology (and its costs). 6. How pervasive the public feels the problem is. IMHO: The only thing that will stop spam is when enough lawmakers have enough spam sent to them to cause enough frustration! Then they will understand the problem. Todd Holt Xidix Technologies, Inc Las Vegas, NV USA 702.319.4349 www.xidix.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy Schmidt Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 10:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Injunction against SpamCop Well, there is SOME truth behind their allegation - it's just too bad, that in this case, a spammer can use the truth for their purposes. But, for anyone maintaining a VALID, subscription based mailing list, SpamCops approach is troublesome, counterproductive at best, damaging at worst (even if their intentions are good). It frequently happens that a prior customer is no longer interested in future mailings. But, instead of following directions to "unsubscribe" - they simply forward the email to a spam-reporting service. If that spam-reporting service doesn't provide me with the full unsubscribe request, then everyone will be unhappy: a) the ex-customer will continue to receive mailings and be more and more enraged about being "spammed", b) the business will continue to receive reports from Spamcop and the like - to which they cannot react (lacking the identifying information) c) the mail server may end up being incorrectly black-listed. If I read the allegations correctly, the spammer is NOT complaining about being black-listed - but about the fact that they are not provided with the necessary information to honor the customers "unsubscribe" request. They are also complaining that a report is filed with a third party (the spammers ISP) - even the spammer has not been given the opportunity to actually comply with the wishes of the "unsubscribing" user. Ultimately, SpamCop should have some "mailer" service, where, for a fee, a mailer can register their "unsubscribe" URL. Spamcop could automatically "unsubscribe" any users who send in a spam report. Then they could track, which users have been unsubcribed with this particular mailer - and if another report comes in AFTER having unsubscribed, THEN this could represent a violation of law and would probably justify more drastic measures to be taken. Best Regards Andy Schmidt H&M Systems Software, Inc. 600 East Crescent Avenue, Suite 203 Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846 Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) Fax: +1 201 934-9206 http://www.HM-Software.com/ -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Todd Hunter Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 01:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Injunction against SpamCop I wouldn't dismiss this too quickly. The concern here is the trend. Spammers using the law/can-spam act against companies that are fighting spam. They don't have to win the suits, they just have to make it expensive, or otherwise not worth it, like they have for many blacklists in the past year that shut down. From the looks of the judgement it appears like they are trying to prove that it is illegal for us to block or hold spam at all. Or make us change our systems so that end users can see the spam and have the option to opt-out. Who do you think has more money to throw into this, Spammers or Spamcop? Todd Hunter At 12:41 PM 5/12/2004 -0400, you wrote: -- ===================================================== MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ ===================================================== |
