[SpamCop-List] Re: Does prosecuting spammers accomplish anything?

[No Spam]

While prosecuting spammers is seen as a means to catch the spotlight 
by those who strut - NO.

Let us take a case in point:

Leo Kuvayev - Ex Russian.
AG Tom 'o Reilly started closing him down, M$ went after him big time.
http://www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=986&id=1416

Well, since then Leo have gone east back to where he came from.

He has adpoted Dean Westbury / Jeff Westbury as an alias:
http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/evidence.lasso?rokso_id=ROK5278

Now he is doing more business than ever with American Registrars 
registering domains with known fake details, using them to spam M$ 
products and P!LLz
http://vaxcave.com/index.php?p=345
(Russian Gentleman answering listed number???) AG O'Reilly's office 
notified a while back, but ....

So, based on Leo's case - NO.

I guess this is where the operative word is "prosecute". He fled 
before the fact. He had warning of what was happending when his 
domains started disappearing off the air.

Then ducked and such was never really prosecuted.

However, if things happended in the correct sequence of a warrant for 
arrest after quiet investigations ...

However, the immediate media value of closing down domains was greater 
than the prosecution value, as such valueless.

The problem is greater than the actual spammer, it is the prosecuting 
authority, the registrar, the host etc etc.

A real hard assed approach is required for this problem. ICANN needs 
to hold registars to their registration agreements. Sorry Yesnic, you 
did not perform, you loose your deposit. Sorry China Tiengtong, you 
did not honour your upstream provider's agreement. At the moment I can 
show how repeat violations are allowed for the sake of the few dollars 
by numerous big names.

(I have it on good authority that a Canadian registrar "may be" in 
trouble for giving privacy protection to a porno spammer. Class action 
  etc. Now maybe if there is another way? Party initiating is not 
commerical but pure interest group. :-)

My dime's worth.


John Smith wrote:
> Recently we've read a lot about the prosection of high-profile spammers, 
> either under the CAN-SPAM Act or under state laws. That's great: 
> spammers deserve to be driven out of business and maybe imprisoned now 
> and then. But I'd be interested to know your thoughts on how much that 
> affects the volume of spam we get everyday. In particular:
> 
> 1. Has the volume of spam actually dropped? (I'm interested in figures 
> from an ISP or similar firm, not anyone's personal spam load.)
> 
> 2. Will new spammers step in to fill the gap left by the ones that got 
> caught?
> 
> 3. Will spammers actually live overseas to avoid prosecution?
> 
> 4. In the next decade or so, will less developed nations become the new 
> spam scourge?
> 
> My personal opinion is that prosecuting spammers provides a strong 
> deterent to other people. I also think that spam isn't market-driven and 
> hence there isn't a finite "demand" for spam that will draw in newbies. 
> And as for threats from overseas, we'll
> cross that bridge when we come to it; in the meantime, the United States 
> is the biggest source of spam and so the place to fight the battle.
> 
> In other words, I think that prosecuting spammers has a real effect, but 
> I'm interested in your views too.