[SC-Help] Disturbing allegation from Edward W. Felten

[Joe Kellett]

In article <mailman.1029809650.32340.spamcop-help>, 
dfs (dfs) says...
> Ed Felten makes some disturbing allegations at http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000014.html
> 
> I think SpamCop may have abused its power here.  Please be more careful.
> 
> 

I just sent the Prof this: 

--------------------

I am, by the way, a SpamCop email-service user. 

>Earlier this week, my ISP shut off this site, because the site had 
appeared on a list of "spammers" published by an outfit called SpamCop.

>Apparently, 

"Apparently"? Apparently according to whom?  Already I wonder if you 
checked your facts.

> this happened because one person, 

That's why facts need to be checked.  A mailserver shouldn't end up on 
the SpamCop BlackList (SCBL) based on  a single report.  Do you know 
what IP address was reported so it can be verified?  

> whose identity I was not
allowed to learn, 

Because real spammers might take action against a spam reporter, such as 
using their address as the "From" on a spam run.  But you can always 
exchange email with the complainant via a forwarding address.

> had sent SpamCop an accusation saying that he had
received an unwanted email message, which I was not allowed to see, that
did not come from me but that did mention my web site. 

That's another problem with this "apparently" stuff.  You *can't* end up 
on the SCBL because your web site is mentioned in a spam.  I think that 
your ISP has misled you.

> On that
"evidence" SpamCop declared me guilty of spamming and decreed that my
site should be shut down.  

Well, on only your ISP's evidence you have tried and convicted SpamCop!  
Did you think to ask anyone at SpamCop for a response to these 
allegations before hitting "send" on your blogging software?

And now I *know* that you've been bullshitted by your ISP.  The SCBL is 
*not* a list of sites that "should be shut down".  It is a list of sites 
with an estimated spam emission rate of > 2%.  And SpamCop recommends 
that email from such servers *not* be blocked but merely tagged as 
*possible* spam.

Your ISP is misleading you.   Big time.

> Never mind that I had never sent a single
email message from the site.  Never mind that the site was not selling
anything.

Never mind verifying the facts, right?

> Naturally, I was not allowed to see the accusation, or to learn who had
submitted it, or to rebut it, or even to communicate with an actual
human being at SpamCop.  

You can communicate both with the complainant and with real human beings 
at SpamCop.  Who told you that you couldn't?  Your ISP?  And you believe 
them why?

> You see, they're not interested in listening to
complaints from spammers.

Are you interested in listening to facts from SpamCop?  Please don't be 
so trusting of you ISP next time.

You know what?  It was your *ISP* that screwed you up.  You *can't* end 
up on the SCBL for a spamvertised web site.  What probably happened was 
that your ISP received a complaint saying that your web site was being 
"spamvertised" and your *ISP* decided to shut your down!   YOUR ISP DID 
THIS TO YOU AND THEY ARE COVERING UP!

> With help from my ISP, I eventually learned that the offending message
was sent on a legitimate mailing list, and that the person who had
complained was indeed subscribed to that list, and had erroneously
reported the message as unsolicited.  

Now the story is changing.  Was the email reported as unsolicited, or 
was your web site reported as spamvertised, or both?  If you're going to 
accuse SpamCop of firing from the hip, do please hold youself to the 
same standard.  And I fear that you have done what you accuse SpamCop 
of, which is firing from the hip based on insufficient information.

> Ironically, the offending message
was sent by someone who liked my site and wanted to recommend it to
others.  Everybody involved (me, my ISP, the person who filed the
complaint, and the author of the message) agreed that the report was an
error, and we all told this to SpamCop.  Naturally, SpamCop failed to
respond and continued to block the site.

It was your *ISP* that shut down your site.  How can SpamCop possibly 
shut down your site?  You are a computer science professor, so you 
*must* know that this is not possible.   Only your ISP can do that.   
What would you say to student who made that mistake? 

> Why did my ISP shut me down?  According to the ISP, SpamCop's policy is to put all of the ISP's accounts on the block list if the ISP does not shut down the accused party's site.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.  

Absolutely, positively untrue.  Gawd, as a professor I would expect you 
to check your facts before publishing a lambasting such as this.   I 
would check such facts before even posting on a Usenet newsgroup and I 
do not have an academic reputation to live up to.  Your ISP is confusing 
SpamCop with SPEWS.org.  Two completely different organizations.  Even I 
know this and I am not an email administrator.  Your ISP is displaying 
incompetence not to know the difference.

> Note the similarities to the worst type of Stalinist "justice" system0i:
conviction is based on a single anonymous complaint; conviction is based
not on anything the accused did but is instead based on favorable
comments about him by the "wrong" people; the evidence is withheld from
the accused; there is no procedure for challenging erroneous or
malicious accusations; and others are punished based on mere proximity
to the accused (leading to shunning of the accused, even if he is
clearly innocent).

So now please show yourself better than the Stalinist justice system.  
*You* have tried and convicted SpamCop based on a single complaint from 
your ISP, completely unverified by you.  That is justice?  Or is that 
perhaps instead a double standard being applied by you?

> Note also that the "evidence" against me consisted only of a single
unsigned email message which would have been trivial for anyone to
forge.  Thus SpamCop provides an easy denial of service attack against a
web site.

Oh, do please check your facts in future.   Your evidence is no better.

>The only bright spot in this picture is that our real justice system
allows lawsuits to be filed against guys like SpamCop for libel and/or 
defamation.  My guess is that eventually somebody will do that and put 
SpamCop out of business.

My guess is that anyone who has the smarts to be a professor at 
Princeton will be able to figure out that you have been led by the nose 
by your ISP, who shut down your site on insufficient evidence and 
*against* SpamCop recommendations (after you do the research you should 
have done in the first place that is).  And anyone with the moral 
indignation that you profess will probably have the moral backbone to be 
able to admit that you are wrong and publish the true facts.

You know the motto: "Hit 'send' in haste, regret at leisure".  

Please now go into the "regret" phase, do your research, and publish the 
verified facts, giving the accused a chance to confront the accuser as 
you *claim* to be proper.

--
Joe Kellett
tanaats