[SpamCop-List] Re: Subscribe = Do Nothing
Nobody at SpamCop.devnull.diespammerdie.net
Sun Apr 16 21:01:58 EDT 2006
Mike Easter wrote:
> Michael Brennan wrote:
> > Is this example U-CAN-SPAM compliant?
> Not only is it youcanspam compliant, but it is also straightup and the
> recipient has a business relationship with the sender.
> I think it makes a nice 'dichotomy' between what antispammers think, who
> are actually in a minority and who have only 'vigilante' actions of
> making blocklists and filters which don't /actually/ have any legally
> recognized standing ....
Sure they do. Same as your fence around your back yard. The creation
and maintenance of blocklists is a library function -- pure information
for reference, as you have pointed out many times to people who think
that SpamCop "blocks" certain IP's.
If I use SpamCop's information to build a client-side fence around my
mail account, I'm perfectly legitimately using generally available
information to protect my privacy and my property (my resources).
If I use generally available information and third-party software
obtained by my ISP to create filters or perform filtering services for
me on the ISP's servers, or between the ISP and Postini and back to the
ISP and thence to my mailbox, that's all private property, too, and
perfectly defensible against spam, rent collectors, or whatever.
If I have an established business relationship with someone, that does
NOT mean I have to accept or read their mail. It only means they don't
lose a civil case or go to prison because I didn't like their mailing
me. I can trash/filter/milter their stuff at pleasure, right?
So if Dar wants to filter this retailer's corrupt-law-enabled spew, he's
perfectly free to do so, and to report them to CBL or SBL or whoever.
Perfectly legal for the retailer to spew -- he bought his law fair and
square. Sort of. Perfectly legal for SBL and SCBL to publicize the
merchant's emissions, and his IP. Perfectly legal for Dar to instruct
his ISP or his client-side application to filter/milter/enscroviate the
DMA lobbying/bribery-service client merchant's spew at will. The only
parties with any exposure here are the Louisiana congressman who took
the money and the bagman who brought it to him and the NGO that gave the
money to the bagman and said, "Go, show the congressman the light of
> This is legal unsolicited mail
> both by the canspam general configuration regulations and by the
> business relationship stipulations.
> The 'law' says the sender can send that mail. At the present time, the
> law doesn't say anything one way or the other about whether or not an
> anti- can report a spam to spamcop or otherwise take actions which might
> interfere with the legal transmission and receipt of such spam.
LOL -- how long before the bagman is back to fix that, eh? And they'll
use the USPS, traditional sewer of the DMA, as their argument by
analogy. Like using pagan temple whores as instructresses and exemplars
for a Sunday-school class about bodily purity.
> The same law that the
> sender is complying with says that if the recipient unsubs, that the
> sender is supposed to stop sending.
And isn't it an amazing coincidence......that that is exactly what a
spammer wants you to do with an unsub link. "Goody goody goody!" the
spammer cries, as he turns to burn the chump's e-mail address into the
"Amazing 30,000,000 Addresses of Chumps Who Rogered Up for Read Spam by
> ....those studies say that those direct marketers *do* remove
> or unsub people from their dirty lists or listwash.
And turn right around and sell, sell, sell the scrubs to the highest
bidder, over and over and over again. You'll have seen the websites
dedicated to lists, lists, lists of people who unsubbed from reputable
financial newsletters. Elaine Garzarelli sells all her unsubs, and
they get marketed online -- primo yummo succulent suckers for all the
little bat-winged direct marketers out there. The mind swims.
But of course I concur it's all legal. For now. Until the people rise,
and Madame Guillotine comes out of retirement.
More information about the SpamCop-List