[SpamCop-List] Re: New Richter article, please comment

[C. S.]

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
> bothersome.
> 
> 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
> spamcop.
> 
> 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,
JOINTHESYSTEM.COM, ILOVETOSENDEMAILALLDAY.COM,
etc...
This alone is in direct violation of the (admittedly weak)CAN-SPAM
act, as it attempts to cloak the origin.