Megaspammer Monsterhut Loses On Appeal 316
Werehatrack writes "Much jubilation was expressed in news.admin.net-abuse.email when it was learned that the long-running court battle between PaeTec and Monsterhut had reached a definitive conclusion on Friday with a New York appeals court finding in favor of PaeTec which finally allowed PaeTec to pull the plug on their least-loved customer's connectivity. PaeTec was actually somewhat restrained in its news announcement on its own website, simply noting that they had won and that they had disconnected Monsterhut."
Big Whoop (Score:2, Insightful)
Until there are real laws with teeth that take these guys down for good, victories will be short lived.
Not to mention the fact that, since they seem to be able to afford the legal fees of a losing battle, they're obviously making some serious coin from a gullible public, which simply means more and more of these bozos as time goes on.
Sigh....between spam and virii this last week, I don't think I really wanted to see 10% of my email.
Re:Big Whoop (Score:2)
I kind of doubt anyone will sign these bozos up. I mean really, even Level 3 'prolly won't touch 'em now.
And yes, my office DOES block all Level 3 IP space. Every last bit of it.
Re:Big Whoop (Score:2)
Its definately a hotmail thing (as well as other ways of getting spam). I know this as I get spam directly to my hotmail account, which I never give out (its only used as a web interface for my incoming email to other addresses). So spammers are just guessing hotmail addresses I think and adding them to the list.
Michael
Re:Big Whoop (Score:2)
It happens over a period of time. I've had one e-mail account for a several years, and each year the spam gets worse. I know better than to follow the link that "unsubscribes" me, but it's gotten to the point that I can't tell the difference between e-mail pushes that I've agreed to and those I haven't. I don't like the idea of changing email addresses, either.
Re:Big Whoop (Score:2)
[I have to type this garbage in here because the slashdot lameness filter filters too much non-lame content.]
class action suits (Score:2, Interesting)
Why aren't there class action suits against spammers? What they are doing is actually against the law in many states, or at least when they forge the headers. They also cause infrastructure damages to ISPs and violate licenses. If they are charged $500 per email in suits against those who complain, and they sent millions of emails, shouldn't they be liable to everyone in a class action suit? Why no one has taken up class action suits against the spammers astounds me, it would be almost certain to win, and it would win large amounts of money.
Hey, maybe I should send an email to millions of people from the Internet about this great idea in which they can make thousands a day!
Re:class action suits (Score:3, Funny)
As much as I would love to sue people who spam me it's not like I have the time or money to do so.
Exactly. I currently have someone sending spam and faking my email address as the From: address. I could surely win a court case against them, but I don't have the time or money to do it. Laws are not the solution.
Re:class action suits (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: how is email spam illegal? (Score:2)
Someone sat down and put that together. Then, they -paid- someone to send it out. We receive it, and chunk it. (Sometimes it's worthwhile and I check it out.) Snail mail spam does more marketing research and has a greater chance of hitting home. (I don't receive penis enlargement offers in snail mail.)
Email is different. First, people pay money to receive email. Whether that money is $20.00/month for your ISP or a per email charge (anywhere now?) - I PAY THAT CHARGE. And then some fucknut company wants to come and use what -I- paid for to advertise to me? Fuck you.
It's the same principle as faxes. Since there is, directly or indirectly, an end user cost, it's not allowed. (Yes, spamming by fax is illegal in most states of the U. S. because it incurs cost on the receiver, not the sender.)
.:|Talonius|:.
Re: how is email spam illegal? (Score:2)
The real problem is that it's a bunch of obvious crap demanding your attention, and it's the attention that you and most of the other spam recipients care about (plus the bad taste of many of the advertised products, and the people who are offended by porn, especially porn spam sent to their kids.) ISPs, of course, are in a different situation, since they're dealing with it in volume.
The big advantage of snail mail spam is that, because there's a non-trivial cost associated with it, they don't send as much to people who don't want it, so you don't receive as much, and you don't waste much of your time trashing it. At some point I should tell the supermarkets to stop spamming my mailbox (it fills up the space, as well as wasting paper), but the only spam that really demands my attention is all the "pre-approved credit card offers" that might let somebody else get a credit card in my name if I simply throw them out instead of shredding them.
Lunacy. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's so odd. The US is the most litigious nation, worldwide, and yet we STILL suck at it.
Re:Lunacy. (Score:4, Funny)
If were great at litigation however, this case would have dragged on for a year, costing far more in legal fees than it ever deserved to. Oh wait.. that's what happened.
Re:Lunacy. (Score:2, Funny)
Even my Grisham collection agrees with you. And six dollars an hour to torture spammers to death? Well, okay, I only have a $20... I'll take three hours.
Re:Lunacy. (Score:5, Insightful)
And I don't find it funny at all.
I just accused our judicial system of being morally bankrupt and functionally impotent. Flamebait would have been more appropriate. Even troll. I think I'll go cry now.
Re:Lunacy. (Score:2)
Hmmm... the end result looks pretty much like justice to me. Perhaps it took a year, but it seems to me that a year is not that long a time for a civil case to run.
I think that you are being unduly critical here.
Re:Lunacy. (Score:2)
I seem to remember reading something about someone trapped in some desert, slowly dying of dehydration. It got so bad, he attempted to drink shampoo. Maybe it's like that for you?
Poetic Justice (Score:5, Funny)
Tie them up, and flog them, Inquisition-style. Every 10th hit or so, you'd stop, and tell them that this flogging isn't really torture, because they specifically asked for the flogging by sending out spam. Then you'd ask them if they'd like to "opt-out" of the flogging. When they said "yes," you could take it to mean "Yes, please flog me some more." Then you could get 5 more guys to come over and flog them too.
As a matter of fact, we could have an army of "Flog-bots" which would seek them out, and bring them to us.
Now that's poetic justice.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:2)
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:4, Funny)
So in addition to flogging the companies who send spam, it's about time that all those forward junkies get flogged too.. Here's how:
You ask them to think of a number between one and ten. If the number is between 0-4, flog them that number of times, plus the year that they were born. Ask them to subtract the month they were born multiplied by the day that they were born. If they get the calculation correct, flog them that many times. If they get the calculation wrong, flog them twice as many times.
Then ask them to think of someone that they want to be with. And tell them that this person will die unless this flogged person finds 10 other spammers to come and be flogged all the same.
Tell them that Bill Gates/Michael Eisner (any other big exec) will personally give them a flogging if they go around saying that they'll get money in an email.
Re:Lunacy. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Lunacy. (Score:2)
injunctions should only be granted if irreperable harm could happen and there is nothing irreperably harmful about changing ISPs.
Anti -spam Court Decision (Score:3, Insightful)
With this decision in hand hopefully the government can make some sort of new law that says that if you send out a large number of e-mails (spam), that your account is disabled immedatly, pending a full review. A law like this could reduce the internet bandwith signifigantly, and allow legitiment users to gain faster access to the services they desire.
Lets see what this does in the ongoing war against internet abusers
Medevo
RTF? Gah, here it is for those without Word. (Score:5, Informative)
So, for all of the people who can't/don't want to read a RTF file.. here is the text of the first link:
(WARNING: It's really boring)
-- starts here --
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., GREEN, WISNER, SCUDDER, AND KEHOE, J. MonsterHut, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PaeTec COMMUNICATIONS, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, LLP, SYRACUSE (ROBERT KIRCHNER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. ALFONSO MARRA BAX, LEWISTON, FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Niagara County (Lane, J.), entered August 27, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by denying plaintiff's motion, granting defendant's cross motion and granting judgment in favor of defendant as follows:
It is ADJUDGED and DECLARED that defendant is not in violation of the agreement and may terminate the agreement in response to plaintiff's sending of unsolicited, mass, commercial e-mail in breach of the agreement and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff, a marketing company that uses the Internet for advertising, entered into an agreement with defendant, an Internet service provider, to obtain Internet access services. The agreement incorporates defendant's Acceptable Use Policy, which provides that a subscriber, here, plaintiff, is in violation of the agreement if it engages in "spamming," defined as "[u]nsolicited, commercial mass e-mailing." Shortly after defendant began providing Internet access services to plaintiff, it notified plaintiff of its intention to terminate the agreement based upon plaintiff's spamming. Plaintiff commenced the instant action seeking declaratory relief and an injunction preventing defendant from terminating the agreement.
Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits (see Technology for Measurement v Briggs, ___ AD2d ___ [decided Feb. 1, 2002]; Talley v Baker, 207 AD2d 967), irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is not granted (see Technology for Measurement, ___ AD2d ___) or lack of an adequate remedy at law (see Matter of Camp Scatico v Columbia County Dept. of Health, 277 AD2d 689, 690). Contrary to defendant's contention, however, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in fixing the amount of the undertaking. The amount of the undertaking is reasonably related to the amount of damages defendant established that it might suffer "by reason of the injunction" (CPLR 6312 [b]; see Blueberries Gourmet v Aris Realty Corp., 255 AD2d 348, 350).
We further conclude that the court erred in denying defendant's cross motion for summary judgment seeking declaratory relief. Defendant established as a matter of law that the agreement prohibits spamming and that neither the two percent complaint limit contained in Addendum 1A, paragraphs 1.4 and 1.5 nor the 30-day notice and cure provision of paragraph 3 applies to spamming. Defendant further established as a matter of law that plaintiff had breached the agreement by engaging in spamming. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Its submissions in opposition to the cross motion amount to nothing more than "mere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions" that it will be able to prove that it did not engage in spamming (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).
We therefore modify the order by denying plaintiff's motion, granting defendant's cross motion and granting judgment in favor of defendant declaring that defendant is not in violation of the agreement and may terminate the agreement in response to plaintiff's sending of unsolicited, mass, commercial e-mail in breach of the agreement.
Entered: May 3, 2002 CARL M. DARNALL Clerk of the Court
Re:RTF? Gah, here it is for those without Word. (Score:3, Interesting)
BTW, what's up with lawyers and ugly courier documents? They use high-powered computers to draw vertical lines in the document header with ')' characters, as if all they had was an old Smith Corona manual typewriter. They always make documents on unwieldy legal size paper that won't fit in your filing cabinet. They use huge fonts that take up lots of paper. They print single-sided on heavy, thick stock. No wonder they're always running around with special 14-inch thick briefcases.
I've gone through a few patent applications (luckily at my employer's expense), where a lot of the process was paying some attorney $200/hr to: Take my carefully formatted documents (which had nice fonts, tables and clear diagrams), and transform them almost verbatim into an uninterrupted stream of monospaced courier text. They also took my nice diagrams and redrew them in a clunky style with little number tags stuck to every line on the drawings. Oh, and every plural noun had the phrase "a plurality of" inserted in front of it. I could almost write a Perl script to do this job.
No wonder the patent office has a hard time retaining patent examiners. Anybody would go mad reading documents all day that have all formatting and context removed.
Why can't the legal profession just come up with a nice standardized documet template?
Why legal docs are padded (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why legal docs are padded (Score:2)
Oh, you mean like every other freelance journalist with being paid per word?
Re:RTF? Gah, here it is for those without Word. (Score:2)
What a waste loading Word for an rtf document! Wordpad would work perfectly well. I'll have to see if I can't .. convince IE not to load Word.
Re:RTF? Gah, here it is for those without Word. (Score:2)
Paetec is just as bad they allowed the spamming (Score:2, Insightful)
the first complaint filed March 22, 2001
items 8 and 9
paetec allowed monsterhut to spam as long as the complaints where below 2%
they both should be put in jail.
this isnt a hurray for the isp and boo for the spammer. Its a spammer geting screwed by a spammer
I wish I could personally have pulled that plug! (Score:5, Funny)
Man, that must have felt good...
It probably went down something like this:
Lucky employee> "Bite my shiny metal ass, spammers!"
*sound of cat5 cable violently ripped out of a router*
Unless they're morons.... (Score:5, Funny)
There are some exceptions to this rule, however.
- A.P.
Re:Unless they're morons.... (Score:3, Funny)
Truly. If he were a true networking professional, he would have gently disconnected the cable running to Monsterhut, and connected it to the 3-phase power terminated in the comms room just for this sort of occasion. Then blamed it on solar flares shifting the Moon's orbit, causing massive tidal shifts that have resulted in huge power spikes from the seaborn relay stations.
And, oh, what was your username, password, ATM number and PIN, by the way?
1 down.... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's one thing I don't get. We are tax payers, the people we elect are law-makers, they are paid to find solutions to common problems. They love passing laws. But WHY do they always have to go against the population and not work with them?
Get this: name me 10 subject that would get 99% approval among the population? heck even TAX CUT wouldn't get 99% because some people would be affraid of the system collapsing, etc etc... but SPAM? come on... if it's not 99% it's going to be 99.9%.
My question is: Why is the system so slow about it? why am I being spammed at a rate of 80 messages a day (including 20 that passes the "HIGH" setting in my hotmail account) I mean if I get spammed, I am sure senate representatives are getting spammed like hell too, I am sure it costs microsoft a LOT in bandwidth and storage and all to keep up with spam on their service (if they have a million of users that are like me receiving 20 spam for 1 valid email (and I am not joking) their system is totally wasted for nothing.
Why so much tolerance? why not blocking every higher class where the biggest spam machines comes from? the hell with the valid users; if they are cutted out, they will do something other than reading about it and sitting there, switch ISP or if it's another country with only one wire well they will do pressure to the higher instances to get their connection back. My way might be drastic, but I am FED UP with it, I've been waiting for 3 years for this problem to get solved and it's just getting worse.
It's like... remember like 5-10 years ago when you could post on usenet without getting any trouble? the worst thing that could happen to you was someone using flash.c against you?
We are barely starting to see something happening, but it's not by destroying the spam of ONE guy that you will scare the others off, this is going to get out of hands even worse, they will see how the legal system is bloated and exploit every single holes in it if they have to.
The system seems to protect the megacorporation more than little guys like you and me, but in this case, it would help BOTH sides, so why is it taking so long? cut asia off for a day, heck, DO SOMETHING. Ideas? heck , these guys are payed over twice my salary to come up with creative ideas, why don't they do their jobs and save me from taking the laws in my own hands?
Re:1 down.... (Score:2)
One word: Money. They get large campaign contributions from various corporate sources, and in return, they cater to the needs of these same corporations. They're in somewhat of a difficult situation because if they don't cater to the corporations, they won't get any more campaign contributions. If they don't have campaign money, their chances of getting elected or reelected drop sharply.
Re:1 down.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I still don't understand how you can operate a mouse and a keyboard, and respond to an email that will help you to get out of debt and entrust your finance to someone that SPAMMED you, I don't know what kind of education these people get but this is very sad. And this is one of the place where the government should protect people from themselves and I wouldn't say anything.
Anyways the point is, big corporation are even more touched than us as individuals, because they get a LOT of traffic wasted on their net feed, they need extra ressources on their mail servers and either a net admin or every employee needs to check their junk folders once in a while to trim the crap from the good messaged filtered out, this costs productivity and equipment for something that shouldn't be there in the first place.
You don't see telemarketters calling people one by one thru the receptionnist in a 1000 employee company right? you don't see vacuum vendors going from desk to desk in large corporations
Re:1 down.... (Score:2)
No, the typical spammer these days is running a highly successful scam or porn site and often has ties to organized crime. The innocent days of Sanford Wallace are gone.
You don't see telemarketters calling people one by one thru the receptionnist in a 1000 employee company right?
Actually, you do. Not through the receptionist, but by sequential-dialing through DID lines. There's no law against it for business lines, unfortunately.
Re:1 down.... (Score:3, Insightful)
At this point in time, the internet was much like some pristine wilderness, barely touched by mankind. The american west in the early 1800s, or maybe a south pacific island at the same time. Beautiful, clean. Able to go anywhere you want, and no one notices. Sure, you can't run down to the 7-11 and buy some chips and beer, and it can even be a rough place to live, but it's just so satisfying. Time could stand still, and you wouldn't complain.
Fast forward to 2002. This pristine wilderness is now covered by smog (popup ads, spam) being churned out by the local factory (spamhaus). There are fences everywhere, buildings built every concievable place, and the few open areas are public parks that don't let you do anything interesting. You can't fly a kite (run a webserver on yourr cablemodem, perrhaps). You can't put whatever sign you want on the front of your leased office building (hosted website). The zoning officials are constantly demanding bribes. And the crime rate in your section of town is horrifying. Not that anyone ever comes here anymore, ever since the Best Buys and Amazons bribed the local politicians to stop the expressway from coming through that area (baby bell dsl fiasco).
Face it, the internet is now one large inner city ghetto, and you don't have any money to move.
Re:1 down.... (Score:2)
I didn't *need* filtering on my email until about 1995-1996 or so.
Re:1 down.... (Score:3, Insightful)
My question is: Why is the system so slow about it?
Because some people would consider Spam to be speech (as in "free speech"), which makes it a Constitutional issue. And the courts are slow (or "deliberate", to spin it more positively).
Re:1 down.... (Score:3, Insightful)
For if corporate speech is not free, then all the campaign contributions that have corrupted the hell out of our legislative system are no longer considered a protected right of the American corporate citizen. Thus the status quo for the ruling elite would change dramatically (until a new loophole was found). Those ruling elite up in washington like things the way they are, it's a great gig if you can get it, as the saying goes and they don't want to lose it.
Re:1 down.... (Score:2)
It all depends on how you ask your questions. Maybe if you ask "should something be done?" you _might_ get 99%. If you include a phrase such as "potentially risking free speech rights for some" or "potentially hindering legitimate commercial email", I doubt you'll get 99% !
Of course, the age-old debate of opt-in vs opt-out comes up somewhere in this whole debate. 99% agreement would be nice, but it just ain't gonna happen. Of course, what percentage of reasonable thinkers do you suppose would agree with this next quoted section (note the boldface phrase):
Amazing.
Despite your lack of reasonable perspective, spam really is becoming a problem and there's already been a number of state laws passed, and some failed attempts at (US) nationwide law. When it comes to making public policy, it's not a simple matter, and fortunately lawmakers don't live in such a simple ("hell with the valid users") world.
But there is something that can be done about the problem right now. Use the SpamAssassin Filter [spamassassin.org]. I do. It works really well, and you can adjust the settings and set your threshold as high or low as you like. I personally enable the RBL and Rozor tests and set my threshold fairly high, so there's virtually no chance of losing any valid emails, yet almost all spam is filtered to a separate inbox (via procmail in my setup). Maybe you'll choose a really low threshold... the hell with the valid users.
Re:1 down.... (Score:2)
Last time I checked my junk account: 12 SPAM in the trash, 1 got thru.
Or, the ISP should have done like Charter Sipping Straw...ahem...poopline, err, pipe line does:
Limit them to 12kbytes a second...MAX.
Unless they had a specific contract that said they are paying for high bandwidth/availability... don't give it to them.
(I.E. Treat them like a "normal customer"..heh)
.
Re:1 down.... (Score:2)
How do you propose to pay for the enforcement of these spam laws?
Whether or not you get support from 99% of the public depends on how you phrase the question. "Do you want to make spam illegal?" is one thing. "Do you want to spend billions of dollars without making any progress toward solving the problem?" is another.
How much are you willing to spend to stop spam?
Re:1 down.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Because elected officials are no longer representing you, but their campaign funding sources. The right to be heard is now only available to those who have paid for it.
Want to know the fastest way to get spam outlawed? Use it for political advocacy for the upcoming election. Hey, it's extremely cheap, and spammers claim it's effective, so why not use it to shake up the status quo? If you're successful, you'll vote the bastards out. If not, you'll get spam outlawed (after all, we can't have the proles thinking they have any say in government (note: sarcasm)).
Schwab
Re:1 down.... (Score:2)
Megaspammer booted offline? But how am I... (Score:2, Insightful)
12 inch penises are illegal in the US? (Score:2, Funny)
Animal sex!
Lolitas sucking
Extreme facials
12 inch+ cocks
I know American men aren't very well endowed, but are cocks over 12 inches long actually illegal in the US?
Re:12 inch penises are illegal in the US? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Kintanon
It's funny, Laugh!
The Original /. story... (Score:5, Informative)
Essentially, here's the lowdown: PaeTec entered an ISP agreement with Monsterhut. PaeTec was informed that Monsterhut was a marketing service that used opt-in service only.
PaeTec soon found out how wrong they were represented. But, before PaeTec could pull the plug, Monsterhut went out and got a restraining order under the basis that their business would be "irrepreably harmed" if their ISP service was shut off.
Monsterhut judge shopped. Found a judge that would grant their injunction.
The problem in court lied over ambiguous language of what the actual acceptable use policy would be. THe terms read something like complaints by 2% of the mails... but, since MonsterHut claims it sends out millions of mails, there certainly wouldn't be any way that PaeTec could get complaints in that number.
Thankfully, the judge saw through the bullshit in this case.
Re:The Original /. story... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not trying to be funny here, but if there is a cat-v cable next to my desk, sometimes my chair will accidentaly pull it out. Hey, sometimes routers need to be upgraded. Sometimes, while pulling new cable, the older cable gets frayed and burned.
If you have a cable in my company, and I don't like you...you are hella-fucked. No matter what anyone says. I will come up with a good reason, I will pull your cable, and (if the TOS requires avalibility) I will refund your money with a big apology.
Re:The Original /. story... (Score:2)
I agree with you 100%... but... when the judge lays down a 5 figure/hour fine for unavaliability and contempt of court charges... you'll probably keep it up.
Re:The Original /. story... (Score:2)
If the ISP in this was did not provide faithful and reliable service on par with their performance with the rest of their customers, they would have been found in contempt. That wouldn't look good legally for them, nor would it help their case. Making excuses of upgrades and massive downtime wouldn't fly in a production environment, and would be really childish too.
Re:The Original /. story... (Score:2)
Re:The Original /. story... (Score:2)
Re:The Original /. story... (Score:2)
Willfully disobeying a *court order* to provide service? Nice. You are not Kiefer Sutherland or a rogue cop out for justice. This is not 24. Your sense of cleverness and independent retaliation just cost your hypothetical employer hundreds of thousands of dollars, and probably the court case itself. Remind me never, ever to hire you.
PaeTec's peers should have blocked Monsterhut (Score:3, Interesting)
What would happen then ? That's not PaeTec's fault. And, those ISPs could cite their own AUPs.
Wouldn't it be lovely? (Score:2)
are things with which you must comply
not just to the letter, but to the spirit.
Otherwise, it would indeed be beautiful to do
that.
A license to spam (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice, eh? A license to spam.
Well, it's all water under the bridge now. The consensus in various forums where this whole issue was discussed to death was that Paetec was making a good-faith effort to get the whole mess resolved and Monsterhut shut down. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I always had the impression that Paetec was always too eager to trot out the excuse that they are prohibited by court order from shutting down this spamming parasite, in response to every spam complaint (with a generous side-order of crocodile tears).
Anyway, I firmly believe that Monsterhut had a pink contract [com.com] here, but when the complaints began to roll in, and Paetec's IP address space began to get blocklisted, Paetec began backtracking, trying to invoke their standard AUP close, and Monsterhut responded by taking them to court.
Paetec Abuse Admin's Comments (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not a true victory yet... (Score:3, Funny)
Not quite that funny (Score:2)
Just remember what happened to Keith Henson when $cientology took some "Tom Cruise missle" remarks out of context in court.
Of course, except in the worst cases, I'd settle for a permanent tattoo of "Spammer" on their foreheads.
From the depositions (Score:2)
The CEO of MonsterHut (Todd P. Pelow, if anyone wants to drop an unsolicated flaming bag of shit at his door) responded in a deposition: "MonsterHut has never agreed that what they have done is spam. Spam is mail without accurate headers, with no opt-out mechanism and without an honest subject line." and furthermore "They send targeted e-mail to those who have opted in to the world of the Internet and said 'Yes I would accept offers that may interest me'."
This guy is whacked. Opted in to the world of the Internet? So when I signed up with my ISP it was the green light for MonsterHut? He seemed to think that their Addendum to the PaeTec contract would protect them; the pertinent bits are
By arguing that MonsterHut doesn't send spam, he thinks it would be almost impossible for PaeTec to prove that their victims hadn't opted in at some point in their Internet lives. And if it's not spam, what's the big deal? They were under the 2% complaint rate. What an ass.
I read enough to find them guilty as charged.
For those who want to double-check this, I was reading from here [paetec.net] and here [paetec.net].
Re:From the depositions (Score:2)
Re:From the depositions (Score:2)
And seriously, read his deposition (if you haven't). It's laughable.
So is this Perjury and Fraud? (Score:2)
This is different from the typical spammer who just lies to the recipient about "you must have opted in so we're sending you this junk offer" or "we'll remove you from the list we used today if you email us", because it's about specific facts, and it's also in court. It's still lying, of course, but sometimes lying becomes fraud and perjury as opposed to merely an attempt to gain attention or deflect complaints.
Monsterhut's record as a spam-gang (Score:4, Informative)
In particular, look at the Advice for those they spam [spamhaus.org]
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
I can see it now... (Score:2, Funny)
Wanted: Hosting ISP with lots of connectivity. Perfer a company with small legal team and not very deep pockets. We Promise [TM] not to Spam [TM].
C|Net's article (Score:3, Informative)
WWBSD? (Score:2)
What would Bernard Shifman do if his ISP pulled the plug on him? Just an interesting thought for the
Oh, and in case you need a refresher: http://www.petemoss.com/spamflames/ShifmanIsAMoro
Good result, a long time coming (Score:3, Informative)
I wrote out my deposition, had it notarised and sent it off to New York in December last year, and that was the last I heard of it. It's nice to learn that it all worked out eventually.
Re:SpamCop (Score:2)
How does SpamCop deal with Outlook [Express], which auto-trims the relevant headers?
Outlook/Exchange just loses with Spamcop (Score:2)
Received: from foo.example.com (192.9.200.1 (smtp.example.com))
by mailserver.mydomain.com someversion-info
for Fri, 1 Apr 2002 23:59:59 -7:00 (PST)
and I can only get the show-the-real-headers material to give me the "by" and "date" portions, which isn't what Spamcop is interested in.
So normally I can only use Spamcop to report mail on my home email address - but lots of it's the same spam :-)
Ain't Google Grand? (Score:5, Informative)
-----------
Domain Name: MONSTERHUT.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Master, Host (HMC407) hostmaster@MONSTERHUT.COM
MonsterHut.com
4390 Paletta Crt
Burlington, ON L7L5R2
CA
716.298.9797 716.98.4719
Exhibit B [216.239.39.100]
-----------
2 Bedroom Penthouse - Only $350/month!
2 bedroom spectacular penthouse in beautiful Delaware District. Only $350/month! This one will go fast! Need to sub-lease immediately for at least 1 year as I need to leave the country on business. Very clean. Elegantly furnished. Vaulted ceilings. Hardwood floors. Maid service paid for. Pool, Jacuzzi, Gated community and 2 underground parking spots. What else could you ask for! Call Todd Pelow at 716-298-9797, 9-5 Mon.-Fri. and 716-822-3047 after hours and weekends until 11pm.
[/voice in head on]
Ain't that a coincidence??? A with the SAME NAME, who uses the SAME daytime contact # of (716)298-9797 just happens to have a penthouse for rent?? And it's in my price range too !!!
Too bad it's not 9-5 Mon-Fri - OH LOOK - he left his cellular number of (716)822-3047 ! I really hope there aren't geeks here who would also want to rent that Penthouse, or I may have trouble getting ahold of him due to the flood of calls!
[/voice in head off]
Ain't karma a bitch Todd? The best part is - the call won't be UNSOLICTED since you asked for it right above... oh the irony is poetic.
//ct
Re:Ain't Google Grand? (Score:2)
Actually, Exhibit B above should link to this :
(right sidebar, half way down) [216.239.35.100]
No use in providing half the proof....
//ct
Penthouse for Rent (Score:2)
"I need to leave the country on business."
The ultimate in irony (Score:3, Interesting)
What I think would be the ultimate in irony would be if someone called him, leased it (bought connectivity), signed a contract (put some dipshit 2% thing in), shit all over the hardwood floors (spammed the net community mercilessly), garnered complaints from the neighbors (innundated the abuse desk), had the police show up because of noise (threat of IDP), wrecked all the rurnishings (rendered the IP block useless as tits on a bull because of blocks placed by net.admins), and got Todd evicted for being a nuisance to those around the apartment (finally tossed off the net).
Re:Ain't Google Grand? (Score:2)
I'm SURE Todd may be needing such a service since he must move. I'll just opt him in out of courtesy.
Poetic justice at last
Kick ass! (Score:2)
MonsterHut swore in court that everything they sent was strictly opt-in. Yeah, like I'd opt in for that.
Congrats to PaeTec and their legal firm.
Do you all see the underling legal implications?? (Score:3, Interesting)
This allows any ISP to claim a violation under there "Acceptible use policy".
"Memorandum: Plaintiff, a marketing company that uses the Internet for advertising, entered into an agreement with defendant, an Internet service provider, to obtain Internet access services. The agreement incorporates defendant's Acceptable Use Policy, which provides that a subscriber, here, plaintiff, is in violation of the agreement if it engages in "spamming," defined as "[u]nsolicited, commercial mass e-mailing." Shortly after defendant began providing Internet access services to plaintiff, it notified plaintiff of its intention to terminate the agreement based upon plaintiff's spamming. Plaintiff commenced the instant action seeking declaratory relief and an injunction preventing defendant from terminating the agreement."
Note that this judgement does specificaly target "spamming ie mass unsolicited email" but you must think beyond just that small detail and take into consideration the larger implications of agudgeing the legality of the "Acceptible use policy"
This friends is trouble with a capitol T.
For instants... Say a mega large software company *cough* Microsoft *cough* with far reaching clout can convince an ISP to include a rule whereby using blah blah blah free-software is not considered acceptible use. Now suppose it convinces 100's of ISP's to include this.
The legal ramifications are ENOURMOUS.
Pray to god none of Billy's legal staff thinks of this.
Horrors! (Score:2)
Please...
He made the trains run on time (Score:2, Insightful)
The number, BTW, looks to be about $.00001 to $.0005 per email, and perhaps less for spam.
But, anyways.. Keep in mind that the cure may be worse than the disease.. Spam sucks, spam is annoying. But finding the *WRONG* cure for it can be worse than the existance of Spam in the first place!
Fascism in germany got its inital support because ``It made the trains run on time.'' We must be careful to not support fascists ``because they stop spam.''
** "Godwin's law" invoked, this thread is over ** (Score:2, Funny)
Godwin's Law [tuxedo.org]
Sorry spam-boy, no fascist/nazi rants wanted here.
The US legal system AFAIK.... (Score:2, Interesting)
This will not change until its reformed to follow practice of other countries based on common law.
If this was the UK/Ireland/Australia/wherever the losing c*nting spammer in this case would be left with nothing only the shirt on his back after having to pay ALL the expenses the ISP incurred w.r.t this case over the past 12 months as WELL as his own legal expenses.
In fact its doubtful it would have come to trial at all. The barrister acting on behalf of the plaintiff would have made it plain b4 hand that the action was shaky and would have painted a less than rosy picture of the likely financial outcome.
Curmudgeon
Use Pyzor - Spamming becomes pointless (Score:5, Interesting)
http://pyzor.sourceforge.net/
The more users it has, the more effective it becomes. Pyzor uses a central database of spam hashes to compare incoming mail against. If the hash of the body of the incoming mail matches an entry in the database then it's a spam. Discard it.
Sure someone will followup to say that they'll include random characters in each individual mail to change the hash values or they'll change parts of the message on each mail. Yes the authors are aware of this and the software already takes this into account.
Spam, Spam, no good for you... (Score:2)
Cut me off and I will sue.
If and when I lose my case
I'll just find another place for
Spam, Spam, no good for you,
...
Then how come...? (Score:2)
What Spamming Technologies Did They Use? (Score:2)
If they're sending it out directly, without abusing relays, it's easy for ISPs to block their IP address space to avoid receiving spam from them.
Also, while Paetec was enjoined from cutting them off, Paetec's upstream providers, who also have AUPs that ban spamming, could still have done so - either by filtering the packets at the routers where they connect to it, or by advertising blackhole routes (or both - BGP is your friend...) That would cut off abuse of relays as well as direct-delivery spam.
Extreemly unlikely they will.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Moving Overseas (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll probably hook up with an ISP in Asia someplace, where people haven't figured out the details about spam yet.
Re:Moving Overseas (Score:2)
This is not to say that I don't get a lot of native Korean spam. (I wonder what they're trying to sell me??)
Re:Moving Overseas (Score:2)
Moderation isn't (shouldn't be) about you, it's about the worth (or lack thereof) of your post to the Slashdot readers as a group.
You post something insightful or informative, I'll mod it up. You post a troll or something misinformative, I'll mod it down. (Or would if I had mod points.) I don't care what your personal karma level is.
Re:Moving Overseas (Score:2)
No, just wrong. They're running Linux.
Re:Moving Overseas (Score:2)
ISPs don't block spammers by domain; they do it by IP ranges. So it doesn't matter whether their domain ends in .jp, .kr, .com, or anything else. Block the appropriate IP range, and you block the spammer.
Re:Extreemly unlikely they will.. (Score:2)
Appartently they're already connected somewhere in the Netherlands. (Like it's not as if they didn't have time to prepare. :^(
Re:Oh, they're in trouble now... (Score:2)
They may find another provider, but whoever it is, that unfortunate company will quickly find itself on so many blacklists that its employees won't even be able to sneeze without hitting an unfriendly router somewhere.
It'll be interesting to see if anyone is dumb enough or suicidal enough to give these spammers connectivity. If that should happen, I'll make every effort to submit the details to Slashdot so the relevant IP space can be erased from the Internet.
Re:Why not pull the plug? (Score:3, Interesting)
From what I read, Monsterhut established a contract with the ISP, then when the ISP provided them notification that the contract had been broken by Monsterhut, and the service was going to be terminated, Monsterhut turned around and got a lower court judge to establish an injunction against the termination of the service by the ISP.
Monsterhut's arguments were that they were not spaming, and that they had otherwise lived up to the contract.
The ISP's arguments were that the thresholds established for determining that Monsterhut had been spaming had been crossed, and that the contract was "At Will" meaning that either party could terminate the contract for any reason, or no reason at all.
The decision by the ISP to terminate the service was based upon the fact that the ISP had received more than 2% email complaining that Monsterhut was a spam source. I do not know what that 2% was of, (network trafic, number of complaints about customer spamming, total volume of e-mail to the ISP) but in my opinion that is a valid threshold. If they set the threshold lower, it is possible that anyone could get kicked off, without having sent any spam, simply because they upset some wanabe hacker who complained to the ISP. 2% of one of these levels means that more money is being spent handling this customer, than the customer is paying.
Personally I think that Monsterhut should be further delt with by making them pay for the ISP's legal bills.
-Rusty
Re:Why not pull the plug? (Score:2)
Tada!
Re:Why not pull the plug? (Score:2)
That is SOOO cool! That should work with ANY judge built on ANY silicon-based microprocessor.
Oh, but wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't Spam On Me. (Score:5, Insightful)
The point? Don't class those of us who get lots of spam because we choose to keep the addresses that we have had for the last 8 years with clueless newbies who don't know how to hide their addresses. We're aware we could use new addresses, but we've chosen to fight for the ones that we've got. All of my addresses are garbled, but goddamn fucking spammers in China, Argentina, and the US are still selling those "million-address" cds, with entries dating back for years, and some of them happen to contain my e-mails, culled from newsgroup postings, documentation, etc. As quickly as I whack-a-mole spammers, others pop us (most are now located in China, either for hosting, or originating - I'd solve 80% of my spam problem if I could just nuke China's connection to the outside world.
I fight hard to rid the 'net of these parasitic scum, and I resent the idea that it's MY fault that I'm getting spammed! Lay the blame where it lies - with the spammers!!!
Finally, regarding your comments regarding telemarketers, do you realize that there is a law against calling someone if they don't want to be called? Yet, under your logic, telemarketers should have the right to "market their product." And being irresponsible with one's address (or number.) You ignore random-dialing, which penalizes me for having a phone, and random-address discovery, where dictionaries of likely usernames are matched against domain names to generate addresses, without even having to run a spambot, or collect someone's data from a form.
Do you use your e-mail for business? Cause if you do, it's got to be a pain to notify all of your clients of your new address...