[SpamCop-List] Re: New Richter article, please comment
notgiven at nodomain.net
Mon May 3 10:00:16 EDT 2004
Sometime around Sun, 2 May 2004 16:54:57 -0700, "Mike Easter" <MikeE at ster.invalid> deemed
it necessary to offer:
> [H]omer wrote:
> > I'm looking for comments on this article,
> This isn't a comment on the article, but just a 'little' thing that is
> Richter's position is that, except for his nasty subcontractor's
> misbehaviors, he really does simply trick people into signing up for
> something, and then he really does remove them on request, and that he
> really doesn't bogus things in transmitting [just that naughty sub].
> And, the fact of the matter is that Richter can show millions of
> addresses gleaned from signups and tens of thousands who've been
> removed. So, temporarily 'ride with' the Richter arguments. Also
> temporarily 'go with' the fact that we're dealing with a 'lenient' can
> spam law here - all of the bellyaching in the world about how bad spam
> is doesn't change the fact that the law in question is the can spam one,
> severely weak. Which means that spammers can spam if they play by the
> rules of can spam - whether you like it or not.
> OK. Except for this little technicality of what happened about the sub,
> Richter wants to say that he really does get people to sign up for their
> spam and he really does play by the can spam rules. The problem he's
> having is that he can't very well remove the people who 'do the wrong
> thing'. That is, it is a given that spamcop has 'bad' reporters who
> report things they shouldn't. We all know that. These misbehaving
> spamcop reporters who sign up and then report spam can't be removed,
> which Richter can prove he 'always' does, because of the methodology of
> spamcop's system. That is, spamcop is acting as an agent of bad
> reporters and shielding them.
> But/And, spamcop's system *lies*. Spamcop's system and faq sez to the
> accused at http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/167.html - I have been
> falsely and/or maliciously accused of spamming, what can I do? - where
> it instructs the person who has an opted in subscriber that they should
> forward "Proof that the user in question did subscribe for your list."
> But, that is a dastardly Catch-22. The mailing list manager cannot send
> such a piece of evidence because the spamcop system munges the evidence
> before providing it. Thereby preventing the person holding the opted in
> credentials from being able to display them.
> A court which is much into the management of evidence isn't going to be
> very happy with this mungeing of the evidence business. Also, it isn't
> going to be very happy with the fact that spamcop isn't doing anything
> about 'resolving' the fact that Richter sez the reporter is a liar and
> spamcop is supposed to be doing something about remedying its reporters
> being liars. "False spam reports are not tolerated. . Users who file
> false reports will be banned from the SpamCop service and/or fined."
> So, if the position of spamcop is that it is /responsible/ for remedying
> the problem of false reporters, but it doesn't do so properly and 100%,
> and it also interferes with the ability of Richter, the good little
> canspam law abider, to comply with the can spam business, then I don't
> think it is such a cut-and-dried slamdunk dismiss the case against
> The case will definitely have to be litigated and the various
> publicities about spamcop's mistreatment of other legitimate mailers
> will have to be considered. Spamcop's responsiblities for its reporters
> which are errant, while 'hiding' them from the proof that they opted in
> may cost it and IronPort some serious legal bucks.
<not snipped due to intelligent arguments>
All fine and good, and follows good logic,
but a simple fact of the matter is that he's in
*direct violation* of the networks' posted TOU/AUP
from which he's spamming and parking his domains.
If this single point has a chance to come to light
during legal proceedings, it could be his downfall.
Even if the domains in question are under his own
control, he's put said domains up as a bogus front.
I can also guarantee, with 100% certainty, that he has
no positive confirmation for each and every address'
intent to receive, that he sends to. He may be able
to fudge his way through a few hundred addies,
but he can't possibly supply 'proof' for the uncounted
millions of others.
Then, there's the products being hawked, especially
anything which is to be ingested: The fraudulent and
bogus claims being made on them are so blatantly
false, they alone are enough to convict him of fraud
and/or intent to deceive on a massive scale.
Let's not also forget the headers game the fool plays,
what with origin domains such as ITSALLANUMBERSGAME.COM,
This alone is in direct violation of the (admittedly weak)CAN-SPAM
act, as it attempts to cloak the origin.
More information about the SpamCop-List