Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spammers Finally Under the Legal Gun?

Comments Filter:
  • by fishexe (168879) on Sunday December 26, 2010 @09:20PM (#34673052) Homepage

    San Francisco-based Balsam has been wielding a one-man crusade against e-mail marketers he alleges run afoul of federal and state anti-spamming laws...

    Wielding a crusade? Really?

    • by Smallpond (221300) on Sunday December 26, 2010 @09:31PM (#34673088) Homepage Journal

      To be fair, a one-man crusade is fairly easy to lift.

      • I don't know, "wield" has such a heavy sound, man.

      • by MarkvW (1037596)

        Anybody can do what this guy is doing. It's not particularly hard.

        Note that the spammers are settling with him!

        • Whoosh! Dude, you're missing that we're making fun of TFA's author's bad use of the English language here... It's even in the title of your posts :-)

          It used to be easier to track down and collect from spammers a decade ago than it is today, because so much of it has moved to off-shoring and botnets, and spammers have learned to use shell corporations, bogus domain registration information, fly-by-night web hosting services, and other techniques, so the low-hanging fruit is mostly gone. It's especially

  • by fishexe (168879) on Sunday December 26, 2010 @09:25PM (#34673068) Homepage
    How is this "unlimited consumer lawsuits from unlimited plaintiffs!"? What I see in this article is a substantial but limited number of lawsuits from one plaintiff.
    • How is this "unlimited consumer lawsuits from unlimited plaintiffs!"? What I see in this article is a substantial but limited number of lawsuits from one plaintiff.

      "Unlimited" does not mean "infinite." Think, "there is no two." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_One_Infinity [wikipedia.org]

      In this case, as with software, "unlimited" means that there is no arbitrary limitation on the number of plantiffs or lawsuits. Sure, there is a theoretical maximum of some 308 million plantiffs, and a further theoretical maximum of some six billion defendants... meaning that if the theoretical maximum were reached, we'd have more lawsuits on this law than have ever been filed in the history of o

      • by fishexe (168879)

        How is this "unlimited consumer lawsuits from unlimited plaintiffs!"? What I see in this article is a substantial but limited number of lawsuits from one plaintiff.

        "Unlimited" does not mean "infinite." Think, "there is no two."

        No shit. Why do you think I said "limited" rather than "finite"?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_One_Infinity [wikipedia.org]

        In this case, as with software, "unlimited" means that there is no arbitrary limitation on the number of plantiffs or lawsuits.

        Well, the maximum of the number of plaintiffs discussed in the article is one.

        Sure, there is a theoretical maximum of some 308 million plantiffs...

        So, yeah, "unlimited" sounds about right.

        Once again, I wasn't talking about the theoretical number of plaintiffs and lawsuits in the world. An article about that might be kind of awesome. What we got was an article about one dude, limited by the number of lawsuits that one dude has time to file. TFA made the summary a teensy bit misleading.

    • What he provides is a DYO template...
    • You can sue as many Russian / Former Russians as you want. Will they ever be brought to AMERICAN justice? No. Russian Justice? Not as long as the keep passing suitcases of cash to Moscow.
      • by fishexe (168879)

        You can sue as many Russian / Former Russians as you want. Will they ever be brought to AMERICAN justice? No. Russian Justice? Not as long as the keep passing suitcases of cash to Moscow.

        I think I see a solution.

        1. Be in cahoots with Moscow.
        2. Bring Russian court suits against spammers whose only way out of lawsuits is to pass suitcases of cash to Moscow.
        3. ?
        4. Profit!

      • by 1u3hr (530656)
        You can sue as many Russian / Former Russians as you want. Will they ever be brought to AMERICAN justice? No. Russian Justice? Not as long as the keep passing suitcases of cash to Moscow.

        Most of the spam I get is obviously for American products. Maybe they pay some Russians to send it, but he source is the USA.

        In any case, when it comes to sending money to the said assholes, wherever they may be, it isn't in a suitcase, it has to go through American banks and credit card companies. Too bad they don't g

  • Does no one here know German? Shame on you.

    • by fishexe (168879)

      Does no one here know German? Shame on you.

      Many here know German...none of whom, unfortunately, are among the editors.

      • by Sulphur (1548251)

        Does no one here know German? Shame on you.

        Many here know German...none of whom, unfortunately, are among the editors.

        Had there been any, then they could have gone past the spelling and gotten the meaning. If the spammers had rheumatism, St. Vitus dance, and erectile dysfunction, then where might be schadenfreude in the Village of the Spammed.

  • Dan is... odd (Score:5, Informative)

    by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Sunday December 26, 2010 @09:42PM (#34673126) Homepage

    I know a company that has had the fun of dealing with Dan. While I hate spammers as much as the next guy, Dan's little crusade seems less than legal to me. Having a valid opt-out isn't good enough. Here is what you agree to by sending him email (not that you would know it at the time):

    All persons, businesses, and other entities that send any unsolicited commercial email to any email address containing “danbalsam.com” voluntarily enter a contract with Dan Balsam and agree to be bound by the terms of the contract and “No Spam Policy” as described herein.

    1. Unless Dan Balsam or someone else with an email address including “danbalsam.com” has specifically opted in to receive commercial email from you, you understand and agree that neither Dan Balsam nor anyone else with an email address including “danbalsam.com” has ever requested any commercial communication from you, and that any commercial email you send that includes “danbalsam.com” in the To, Cc, or Bcc fields that fits these criteria is against the express wishes of the recipient(s).
    2. As consideration for reading your unsolicited commercial email, you agree that any email you send which advertises or promotes any product, service, or Internet destination shall be subject to a $25,000.00 fee for reading and responding appropriately. The fee may be paid in advance at PayPal, or Dan Balsam will remit an invoice.
    3. You accept responsibility for any affiliates or marketing agents who promote any product, service, or Internet destination on your behalf.
    4. Concealing your identity increases the fee by $10,000.00 to compensate for the effort to track down the sender.
    5. You may not sell, barter, or give away to any other party any email addresses containing the domain name “danbalsam.com.” Violation of this clause subjects you to liquidated damages of $10,000.00 or ten (10) times the amount of money you made selling the address(es), whichever is greater.
    6. You agree that California Business & Professions Code 17529.5 is not pre-empted by the Federal CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.
    7. In the event that any suit or action is instituted to enforce any provision in this contract, Dan Balsam shall be entitled to all costs and expenses of maintaining such suit or action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.
    8. This contract shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors, assigns, administrators, executors and other legal representatives.
    9. Any action in respect of or concerning this contract shall be litigated solely in California and both parties consent to jurisdiction in California. This contract shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
    10. Sending email to or copying to or blind copying to any email address containing the domain name “danbalsam.com,” or similar actions by your affiliates/agents, constitutes voluntary acceptance of these terms.

    Copyright © 2002-present, Daniel Balsam

    • by microcars (708223)
      I am going to send him an email asking if he would license me that contract to use for my own domain.
      I wonder if I would get a bill? After all it would be an unsolicited commercial email.
      • by Asic Eng (193332)
        I wonder if I would get a bill? After all it would be an unsolicited commercial email.

        I don't think so. From his website:

        [...] our federal government passed the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, which [...] attempts to pre-empt the state laws [...]. But, there is an exception to preemption. CAN-SPAM does not pre-empt anti-spam state laws that prohibit falsity & deception, [...] and so I continue to file lawsuits.

        So looks like you would need to be deceptive (or falsify the headers or something like that) in o

    • by www.sorehands.com (142825) on Sunday December 26, 2010 @09:51PM (#34673178) Homepage

      It used to be, not as much now, that spammers would scrape web sites to obtain e-mail addresses to spam to.

      Terms of use are many times enforceable as a contract.

      The simple thing is NOT to SPAM!

      Just because the DMA bribed enough congress people to get a law passed to allow it in the USA, specifically to override the California ban on the law, does not mean that it is wanted.

      There is more to comply then providing an opt-out link.

      • by Opportunist (166417) on Sunday December 26, 2010 @10:10PM (#34673250)

        All true, all true. But this opens a door for the legal trolls that would be worse than all the spam of the world combined.

        • But this opens a door for the legal trolls that would be worse than all the spam of the world combined.

          The terms laid out seem entirely reasonable to me, and I've certainly never sent an e-mail that would violate them. It's true, I suppose, that a troll could set up a website with insane terms buried on the site somewhere ("If you send the owner of this site e-mail for any reason, you agree to pay $1,000,000 per byte") but the solution to that problem would be either not to e-mail any of the listed addresses, or sue the site owner for ... oh, hell, I don't know, something that a good lawyer could no doubt c

          • The point is that you didn't even WANT to send them a mail. You made a typo and it ended there.

            Example:

            You (or let's make it a MBA, just to increase the chance of a computer related fuckup) receive a business card from a new business partner telling you to send him your offer to dan@somecompany.com. You send it to dan@sonecompany.com. Because you made a typo when copying the name from the business card.

            sonecompany.com belongs to our law troll and you receive a mail telling you that you just implicitly agree

            • First, there is a defense of mistake. Second, it is not against spam, but spam that has a deceptive subject line or header.

              Even if you make a mistake in the e-mail address, should be be offering a free TV, that is not really free, to someone who gave you a business card asking to be e-mailed?

              The California law outlaws deceptive spam.

          • by rcw-home (122017)
            Or just send a contract of your own via the EHLO string when your mail server connects to his to deliver the message. It's equally unenforceable, but it might get him to see the point if he feels like pressing the issue.
        • That is what they said about the junk fax laws, if you allow people to sue it will create junk fax trolls. I have not seen that, but instead I saw junk faxes become almost extinct.

          • I don't say "outlaw suing". I said make sure that you don't open a bigger can of worms than the one you're closing. Make sure that law trolls can't jump on it and feast on it.

    • So kind of like an EULA you only get to read after purchasing a product?

      All he needs to add is: 'If you do not agree to these conditions, please contact %site_email_provider to delete your email from our inbox'

      • So kind of like an EULA you only get to read after purchasing a product?

        Except, of course, it's published on his website, so you can read it before emailing him.

    • If this holds in court, here's what every lawsuit troll will do:

      1. Register domain names that are similar to those of companies and contain the usual suspects for typos.
      2. Set up a mail server and put this drivel up there.
      3. Wait for someone to make a typing mistake.
      4. Sue
      5. Profit.

    • Re:Dan is... odd (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 26, 2010 @10:11PM (#34673254)

      Having a valid opt-out isn't good enough.

      No, it isn't.

      I'm not Dan, but I've dealt with people who think like you before.

      Let me put it simply: I didn't opt in to your spam. You're already stealing my time and resources if you managed to get it through my spam filters. So I'm sure as fuck not going to trust you to opt me back out of it.

      • by yuhong (1378501)

        Especially when it is hard to tell whether the opt-out really is an opt-out.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MBCook (132727)

        Like I said, I hate spam. I get hundreds of pieces a day, and I wasn't for CAN-SPAM (since it legitimized it). I think all email should be opt-in. But Dan's little agreement seems like you suing me if I sent you a letter from my business because I didn't take the time to go read a note posted on his door I didn't know about. It seems like trap, and a somewhat unfair one.

        I just worry is method is too heavy handed. What if I send him a question (about something else, totally not business related) and he deci

        • by LingNoi (1066278)

          Both you and Opportunist with you're lame "what if" situations completely ignore that the emails are commercial spam. He's not suing legit email.

          When that happens wake me up otherwise your lame "what if"'s are over complicated nonsense.

    • Dear Dan,

      We are thrilled to hear your response to our offer of \/1A g R 4. However, as we are persons thus far unknown to you, in a country thus far unknown, who have contracted with other persons unknown to you in Russia and China to hire the services of 100,000 computers in 12 separated countries for to send our valuable messages to you we must reply to your filing of the law suit against us in California court with a "giggle" as they say in English. Good luck collecting on your defaults judgement.

      OXOX,

      V

      • by Asic Eng (193332)
        However, as we are persons thus far unknown to you, in a country thus far unknown

        So what? He makes a comfortable living from the people he can easily catch. It doesn't matter to him if he doesn't catch everybody. Besides, for a sales-based spam you need some way to get money to someone, some way to order something, some way to get something shipped to you. All of these are traceable - it doesn't matter if you can't trace the PC the mail was sent from.

    • No, that would not be legal. There are rules for contracts that require that an offer must be accepted by the offeree [wikipedia.org]. You can't agree to the terms of an offer that you have not seen. Now you could say that if a spammer sent further messages after the first one resulted in a reply with those terms then they would be liable, but I am not sure. It is like when you get one of those automated phone calls with a recorded message. You can't just talk back to the message and legally say that you have informed the

      • I am not sure who to cheer on here, a spammer or a lawyer.

        Let them kill each other, then the rest of us will be better off

      • If he's got the contract on his web pages, and the only way you can find out most of his email addresses you're targeting is by reading his web page, then you're presumed to have read his offer. If you're spamming "dan@danbalsam.com" that may not apply, because that's obvious without looking at his web page, but if you're spamming user34590438509348@danbalsam.com, you got that from his web page.

        And maybe that's not a tough enough legal contract to force you to pay him $1000000 and your first-born child, bu

      • by MBCook (132727)

        Yeah, that's my big problem. If he auto-responded with a copy of the terms and "By continuing to send me email you agree to them" that would be much better.

        I like the idea of suing the people who's products are being advertised, but since so much spam is a fake scam, suing Apple because someone is offering a free iPod (or Pfizer because of "cheep V1agR4") doesn't seem like it would accomplish much. Actual cases where the companyis the advertiser are much more rare.

      • by vlueboy (1799360)

        It is like when you get one of those automated phone calls with a recorded message. You can't just talk back to the message and legally say that you have informed the phone spammer of your conditions.

        Ahhhh! US lawyer culture...
        A local sCammer used a fake name under *my* phone# and we've been in the sights of a few collection agencies.* A recent agency has the guts to leave repeated voicemails with robo-messages stating that "This message is for $fake_name. By listening to this message you certify that you are $fake_name... If you are not $fake_name, hang up now. There will now be a 3-second pause." Only after that, do they give callback info for $fake_name to make ammends. But this bold pretense is offe

    • While I hate spammers as much as the next guy, Dan's little crusade seems less than legal to me. Having a valid opt-out isn't good enough.

      He's correct. Having a valid opt-out is NOT good enough. There are two reasons for that.

      First, if a valid opt-out were good enough, it would mean every spammer gets a freebie, and then we have to actually take positive action to not receive further spam from them.

      Second, opting out requires communicating with the spammer--letting them know that you actually spent time looking at their spam. That is likely to just get you even more spam.

    • by vux984 (928602)

      Luckily, all persons, businesses, and other entities that receive any unsolicited commercial email from any email address containing any of my domains also voluntarily enter a contract with me as described herein:

      0 : You retroactively agree to exempt said communication from any retroactive Terms and Conditions you would normally seek to apply.

    • by Sir_Lewk (967686)

      The only reason you would ever run foul of this is if you were sending out unsolicited commercial email... SPAM!

      In that case, fuck you. I have no sympathy.

    • by xenobyte (446878)

      That contract only applies to COMMERCIAL emails. You can email Dan as much as you like as long as the emails are non-commercial in nature, but there's no reason to send him commercial emails because - well, he doesn't want any. That really cannot be hard to understand?!

      How hard can it be to limit your emails to people having opted-in to receiving those? - That's really all he's asking for.

    • by 1u3hr (530656)
      Here is what you agree to by sending him email

      Bollocks, completely unenforcible. I bet he's never had anyone pay any of these "agreed" fees, and never taken anyone to court to claim them. It's just a longwinded way to say "Piss off spammers".

  • I rarely see a spam message make it through the filters these days. I think this guy is a bit late to the game...
    • Considering he's already made a million, I'd say you're wrong.

      And why should filters have any relevance here? Are you saying you prefer the way things are where filters are necessary to find any usefulness in email?

    • by jfengel (409917) on Sunday December 26, 2010 @11:09PM (#34673498) Homepage Journal

      Well, this guy is making a living out of it. He's seeking spammers, at least the kinds of spammers he can figure out where to send a subpoena.

      Unfortunately, those seem to be the comparatively benign spammers. Oh, they're still spammers and I wouldn't shed a single tear if any of them had their faces eaten off by wild dogs. But at least from the article, this isn't the Nigerian princes, or Russians trying to sell you v1@gra. It's the companies who really should be complying with the CAN-SPAM laws so that they "can spam" you. (And the kind that's REALLY easy to filter.)

      They're not filling your in-box with millions of spams. That's the other guys, and as far as I can tell this guy isn't doing squat about them. Work for somebody else, but it means that this guy is less interesting than he might appear from a cursory summary.

      • It looks like he's especially trying to catch spammers who are doing business in California, since California laws are tougher than the US CAN-SPAM law. But it sounds like he's also catching people who are violating CAN-SPAM, and any US spammer who can't figure out how to comply with that law cheaply and easily while still spamming their way to Making Money Fa$t is too stupid to deserve to stay in business, and yet many of them don't bother. Obviously non-US spammers don't have to comply with US or Califo

  • There is almost no realistic chance of this turning out to anything useful. The spammers you want to go after are in countries where US laws and verdicts have no jurisdiction. You might as well try to shout at your inbox as an anti-spam measure, it would be just as useful.

    If you want to actually make a difference in the spam epidemic, you need to address the underlying cause of spam. You need to accept the fact that spammers are not spamming you to piss you off; rather they are spamming you because the
    • Your assumptions are flawed. Point of fact the US accounts for fully 80% of spam.http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/countries.lasso

      But more so you suggest that to stop spam we transfer fully half of our wealth to other countries? good luck with that one.

      • Point of fact the US accounts for fully 80% of spam.http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/countries.lasso

        That is not relevant to my point. The money that drives spam comes from all over the world. However, the numbers they use for that page refer to the number of open spam incidents per country, which doesn't have much of anything to do with where the spam is actually coming from or who is funding it; they are looking at where systems are located that are relaying that spam.

        But more so you suggest that to stop spam we transfer fully half of our wealth to other countries? good luck with that one.

        No.

        I have no idea how you came to that utterly disconnected conclusion.

    • by Kjella (173770)

      First off, it's not like there has to be a single solution. I think by far the biggest problem is that if your email is spammed once, it's spammed forever. Everybody knows opt-outs do not work, making such requests will only make your address ten times as spammed. If I were to redo my mail setup, no one would get to know my real inbox. Every address I'd use would be an alias - yahoo will give you 500 of these for free - and every mailing list and every site that requires email for registration would get the

      • The easy half of the game is to have a system for generating lots of aliases - either of the form alias@yourdomain.com (or alias@yourusername.yourisp.net) or yourusername+tag@yourdomain.com are both standard approaches for supporting an infinite number of tagged addresses.

        The difficult problem is getting your email user agent to be friendly about making sure that if you got mail from someone who knows you as alias123@yourdomain.com, your replies to them get sent From: alias123@yourdomain.com, and also maki

      • I have that setup already. Problem is they do automated attacks against domains, so eventually they crack through to your real email. Once they score a hit they sell the live address to other people for their lists. The best you can do is keep it at a dull roar.

    • by gman003 (1693318)

      In other words, the only way we will ever stop spam is to address the economic issues behind spam.

      That's what Mr. Balsam is doing - addressing the economic issues. The problem with spam is that, essentially, it has zero financial risk. You aren't guaranteed to make any money, but the cost is as close to zero as you can get, hence you have very little chance of losing money. Thus, as long as a single moron is stupid enough to buy your product, you end up with a profit.

      By adding a financial burden, ie. litigation, to spam, it becomes possible to end up with a net loss by spamming. One man alone probabl

      • In other words, the only way we will ever stop spam is to address the economic issues behind spam.

        That's what Mr. Balsam is doing - addressing the economic issues.

        By adding a financial burden, ie. litigation, to spam

        The problem with that assumption is that the litigation actually adds zero - or very close to zero - actual cost to spam. This is because of several important factors, not the least being that most spam is run by groups that are not within the jurisdiction of US law. You might as well file a personal lawsuit against Osama Bin Laden while you're at it, the result will be just as relevant.

        If you want to make a difference, you need to go after the companies that are funding the spammers. The spammers, ar

        • by gman003 (1693318)
          A few final counter-counter-counter-arguments:
          1. Yes, many groups outside the US send spam. However, stopping American-based spammers would be beneficial, even though it is not a complete stop to spam.
          2. For the record, there actually is/was a lawsuit against bin Laden, filed by (IIRC) the pilot's and aircrew union. I have no idea what the status of it is.
          3. This man is suing the people being advertised. He isn't suing the intermediaries - there's no effective way to figure out who they are without police resource
      • by dangitman (862676)

        That's what Mr. Balsam is doing - addressing the economic issues.

        I don't think so. The economic issue is that you want your penis enlarged. Don't you?

        As long as people want their penises larger, spam will continue, and efforts like this are just talking around the issue. The issue being that you want your penis enlarged.

    • Or you fight back with a little more creativity using spamd [openbsd.org] Nothing stops spam like sending the spam spew to a grinding halt (or even crashing it) by setting your TCP receive window to a value of 1 based on known spammer IP addresses. It is a highly elegant solution. I've deployed it within the family business and we went from thousands of spam messages per day to maybe 2 per week without the headaches of heuristic filtering.
    • I'm quietly working on that too.
      Right now Spam is a "push" mechanism, of something with negative value.
      I am working on Converter concepts to suddenly turn spam into something with POSITIVE value.

    • by bloodhawk (813939)
      Your actually wrong, most of the worlds spam originates in western countries that are most definitely accessible via the courts as can be seen by some of the largest spammers recently being hauled befor ethe courts, While yes you need to address the root cause which is money you still need to stomp hard on the bastard spammers that are facilitating this bastardy.
    • by Peeteriz (821290)

      Addressing economic issues behind spam can be done by ensuring that companies that use spam in their advertising pay more in fines than they could earn by the sales of their products.

      A large part of the spammers are actually in the US - see any statistics on spam origins. Most of the spam wants to get your money, so they sell and deliver stuff in US, so they are quite vulnerable to US jurisdiction, as the court verdicts would apply to their money and stuff passed through US. Dan's methods won't work against

  • FTFS: "unlimited consumer lawsuits from unlimited plaintiffs"

    Au contraire. You can limit the lawsuits by limiting the amount of spam you send.

  • This story just emphasizes that litigation doesn't solve anything. How is this 'crusade' actually helping reduce the kind of really atrocious spam that consumes untold CPU cycles, internet bandwidth, and user time? I can't believe that these companies, "large and small," that are actually reachable, are the really troublesome spammers, and not just some more or less well-meaning people who didn't perfectly adhere to CAN-SPAM regulations. So, he's essentially extorting from legitimate companies and groups, r
    • Legal solutions aren't going to kill all spamming until we acquire Un-bribe-able World-Wide Pork-Product-Hating Overlords. But a large amount of spam actually does come from US-based spammers, including little guys and big businesses. It's extremely easy to comply with CAN-SPAM if you're not a deliberate spammer - don't send people unsolicited commercial email and you've done your job. It's pretty trivial to comply with it even if you *are* a deliberate spammer, and cheap and easy to set up a $100 shell

  • I'm surprised I didn't hear about this via email direct marketing!

  • UNLIMITED RICE PUDDING!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 26, 2010 @11:25PM (#34673574)

    The spammers just pass this cost on by raising the price of penis enlargement pills. As always, it's the little guy who pays in the end.

  • But i want to see when some sort of huge megacorporation decides to do the same thing this guy is doing, using the "common" methods this kind of corporation does.
  • I really think this guy is suffering from delusions of grandeur. His "TOS" is not rational. We can dream of such a scheme, much like we sometimes dream of a lotto win. Beyond that, taking it any further into reality, well, thats into the realms of mental illness.
  • By requiring all incoming mail to be either on the user controlled white-list (ie: any user can opt to allow an address such as *@slashdot.com or joe@sixpack.net), or to be linked via our PGP chain of trust we have eliminated all spam.

    Signing up for a web service that validates e-mail address? Simple: add that site to the white-list first.

    In my company signing our e-mails via our PGP key is essential to prove who wrote what when.

    Seriously folks, the solution to SPAM is not yet another awesome filtering algorithm, or futile and expensive legal proceedings; It's verifying the sender is who they say they are. Stop complaining about how unsecured & non-authenticated the unsecured & non-authenticated e-mail protocol is and instead, help us all work towards the solution by adopting/advocating secure & authenticated e-mail.

    Why does SPAM exist? Because people are too lazy to force the authentication issue. If everyone digitally signed their e-mail we could say, "filter all mail connected by more than 6 degrees of separation into the junk folder," and the fight against SPAM would be over. IMHO, we shouldn't be fighting against SPAMers, we should be fighting for adoption of authentication.

  • He's not my hero, and that with me hating spam with a passion.

    What is is doing is picking the low-hanging fruits. The ones you can easily identify and sue. He's suing dating sites and social networking sites for being too aggressive and misleading with their mailings. He's doing squat nothing against the real scourge, which is the the Viagra and penis enlargement and Nigeria scamming.

    Yes, I don't like those mailing you get from every site you sign up to all the time, but at least on those the opt-out link u

  • So... where exactly is the heroism? What has he done for the greater good of another individual or for society?

    I RTFAed, he just takes the money and move on.

No amount of genius can overcome a preoccupation with detail.

Working...