Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam

Spam King Living High in the Bayou 283

Posted by michael from the spam-and-eggs-and-spam dept.
mikey573 writes "Connecticut's main newspaper, The Hartford Courant, decided to bring the issue of spam to the forefront with a top headline front page story Spam King Living High In The Bayou in its Sunday print edition. The article goes into describing the spam marketing company "Opt-In Marketing Services". The article goes too much into glorifying one person's success with spam, while failing to underscore the potential problems he has caused for others."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spam King Living High in the Bayou More

Spam King Living High in the Bayou

Comments Filter:

  • Could this guy be any stupider? (Score:3, Funny)

    by NotesSauceBoss ( 568036 ) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @11:06AM (#3795788)
    Now we know he's not just a jerk spammer, but he's also an idiot!

    "Hi, I'm one of the most hated people in America. Here's my name, a photo of me, what kind of car I drive, and where I live."

    I'm suddenly having Pulp Fiction flashbacks. I need a couple of pipe-hittin bruthas with a pair of pliers and blowtorch.

    • Re:Could this guy be any stupider? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      1) Lay off the "let's kill this guy" stuff. Last I knew, things like that could be considered threats. I.E. illegal. Don't do it. I *hope* that no one is serious about causing any sort of criminal mischeif or harassment, but...

      2) BTW, if you'd like to politely contact him and tell him that you disapprove of his spamming, especially in so far as his 'free speech' forces us to pay for it, a rather apropos way to do that would be to contact him via his 1-800 #'s... In fact, there's a lovely page detailing how to reach this guy:

      http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/search.lasso?evide nc efile=1070

      ABUSERS: Ronald R. Scelson
      [Birthdate: 12-11-71 or 72, New Orleans, LA, married]
      avsrscelson@aol.com / cajunspam@aol.com / avsrscelson2000@yahoo.com / dff@yahoo.com
      Amy Hoolahan [wife/sister?]
      43 CYPRESS MEADOWS LOOP
      SLIDELL, LA 70460 US
      Home: (504) 646-2225
      Work: 504-649-6248

      PHONE NUMBERS: 888-365-0000 ext. 1648 / 800-242-0363 EXT. 2427
      888-724-3108 x5413752
      504 781 8117 / 504-957-1037 / 504-847-1232 / 504-649-7751
      504-781-6615 / 504-649-6248 / 504-781-6655 / 504-831-1595
      504-646-2225 / 504-641-0876
      FAX: 504 641 0810 / 504-456-0995 / 504-781-6615

      Please try to be civil. There are laws against harassment. There's no law against politely explaining to him that you never want to hear from him again. Just tell him that you'll keep calling him until he leaves you alone...
      • Why kill him? There are better ways.

        The last couple of jerks that were sending me "TUKUMBA MAMUMBA MINISTER OF STUPIDITY. WE NEED TO HIDE 30 MILLION RAND" mails disappeared into "Night and Fog" with no need of any such harsh Pulp Fiction brutalities. Instead of Pulp Fiction which doesn't work one should use "The GULAG Archipelago" approach which does.

        All that was necessary was to cut and paste the mail headers and the mail into the terrorist tipoff page of FBI and express concern that the scam ring they are running is being used to collect money for terrorism (they were stupid enough to send mails from Bell Atlantic). After that - guess what: Not a single Nigeria fraud SPAM for a second month in a row.

        And the beauty of it is that they do not get a lawyer, rights and are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Long live the Patriot Act.
  • mention exactly where in the bayou, like, say, an address?

  • Scelson data (Score:5, Informative)

    by Patrick13 ( 223909 ) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @11:14AM (#3795816) Homepage Journal
    Someone else has done their homework on Scelson there is a bunch of info, including tel #s and addresses
    here [spamhaus.org].

    His interview makes him seem like an utter chump. Make him pay...

  • Rights -vs- privileges (Score:5, Informative)

    by the_rev_matt ( 239420 ) <slashbot@revmatt. c o m> on Sunday June 30, 2002 @11:16AM (#3795830) Homepage
    He seems to missing a fundamental point: You do not have a Constitutional right to an internet connection. You cannot (or should not be able to) force a company to do business with you if they don't want to. If Qwest sees that they are losing customers because they provide internet access to you, they have a fiduciary duty to terminate their business relationship with you. I think I'll start buying stock in telecoms and ISP's just for the purpose of filing shareholder lawsuits against companies that cave in to spammers like this. Breach of fiduciary duty is extremely serious to large companies, and you can sue individual CEOs/board members/etc as well as the company. He wants to use the courts to force companies to provide services, the shareholders have a right to use the courts to make sure the companies DON'T provide those services to him.

    • Re:Rights -vs- privileges (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NASAKnight ( 588155 ) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @11:21AM (#3795853) Homepage Journal
      You cannot (or should not be able to) force a company to do business with you if they don't want to

      Well, the civil rights movement stopped that. I guess his argument is that they cannot deny him of service simply because of his choice of business. Now, I agree, beeing black is different than being a spammer, I just thought I'd play devil's advocate for a moment.

    • Re:Rights -vs- privileges (Score:4, Insightful)

      by josh crawley ( 537561 ) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @11:27AM (#3795874)
      ---"He seems to missing a fundamental point: You do not have a Constitutional right to an internet connection."

      However, data transmission SHOULD NOT be considered as long as you're paying the correct price for the bandwidth (perferrably per K-packet).

      ---"You cannot (or should not be able to) force a company to do business with you if they don't want to."

      I believe that isn't the case when the company is a monopoly, and possibly discriminating against you on speech. Yes, it could get that nasty.

      ---"If Qwest sees that they are losing customers because they provide internet access to you, they have a fiduciary duty to terminate their business relationship with you."

      Does the same analogy hold true for the snail mail industry? NO. The spam idiots pay for the media, and pay for postage to my house. I just toss it away. Some are crafty and make it look like legit-like bills. Some promise prizes. It all goes to the shredder. My point is, if they pay through the nose for constand bandwidth, give them what they asked.

      ---"I think I'll start buying stock in telecoms and ISP's just for the purpose of filing shareholder lawsuits against companies that cave in to spammers like this. Breach of fiduciary duty is extremely serious to large companies, and you can sue individual CEOs/board members/etc as well as the company. He wants to use the courts to force companies to provide services, the shareholders have a right to use the courts to make sure the companies DON'T provide those services to him."

      I dont like either solution. Either result sets a precident I DONT LIKE.
      • - However, data transmission SHOULD NOT be considered as long as you're paying the correct price for the bandwidth (perferrably per K-packet).

        TOS explicitly states 'NO SPAM'. Break the TOS, you lose the contract.

        -"You cannot (or should not be able to) force a company to do business with you if they don't want to."
        --- I believe that isn't the case when the company is a monopoly, and possibly discriminating against you on speech. Yes, it could get that nasty.

        Wrong. A company is not obligated to do business with you for any reason whatsoever, save religious or sexual discrimination. My dad owns a store; if somebody walks in that my dad doesn't like, he can tell them to leave, no explanation necessary, AS LONG AS there is no religious or sexual discrimination.

        ---"If Qwest sees that they are losing customers because they provide internet access to you, they have a fiduciary duty to terminate their business relationship with you."

        --Does the same analogy hold true for the snail mail industry? NO. The spam idiots pay for the media, and pay for postage to my house. I just toss it away. Some are crafty and make it look like legit-like bills. Some promise prizes. It all goes to the shredder. My point is, if they pay through the nose for constand bandwidth, give them what they asked.

        Except that you're not paying to receive snail mail. You -do- pay for bandwidth. Additionally, spammers generally don't go through legitimate methods of sending mail. They go to through multiple open relays, spoof return addresses, etc, which ends up causing -OTHER- companies bandwidth, and hence, money, and can often result in unintentional DOS attacks.
      • Actually, junk mailers are largely subsidized by first class mail (that's the mail you send when you pay your bills, etc). Postal rates on first class go up fairly regularly, postal rates on bulk (third class) do not. Ask 100 mail carriers about third class mail and I would be willing to bet 99 of them would rant and rave about the subsidy. Your point that if they want to pay through the nose isn't a valid comparison to snail mail, because snail mailers don't pay through the nose, they pay about 1-3 cents per item.

        My point is that a business has a right to say "We don't want to do business with company X". This spammer is trying to use the courts to force Qwest to provide service to him when Qwest sees a valid business reason to NOT do business with him and therefore doesn't want to do business with him.

        • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @12:16PM (#3796059)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • You've opened my eyes a bit here. I have always been amazed that the USPS was able to charge such a pittance to deliver a hand-addressed envelope anywhere in the country, together with extra measures like return addresses and forwarding. You've now shown me that they certainly aren't making a profit on that part. First class mail is sweet deal.

            • Comment removed based on user account deletion
              • Actually most analysts recon that the bulk mail is subsidized by the letter post. This has been the case since the start of the USPS, several early revolutionaries were newspapermen and so they secured guaranteed low rates for their product.

                Junk mail gets a massive subsidy because the companies that do bulk mailings buy influence in Congress. The cost savings from automation are nowhere near large enough to cover the breaks junk mailers get.

      • Does the same analogy hold true for the snail mail industry? NO. The spam idiots pay for the media, and pay for postage to my house.

        Yes, it does hold true for the snail mail industry.

        FedEx, UPS, and others can (and do) chose not to do business with some people (usually, but not always, based on geography). This is their right.

        The U.S. Postal Service, however, is a government entity, and is thus subject to different rules of conduct which tend to err on the side of avoiding discrimination, rather than erring in the other direction.

        The two are not comparable. Unless the government nationalizes the entire ISP and telco industry (not just the copper, mind you, but the entire services) this comparison does not hold, and the right of a company to "fire" one of its ill-behavied clients remains intact.
      • --"However, data transmission SHOULD NOT be considered as long as you're paying the correct price for the bandwidth (perferrably per K-packet)."

        There is competition based on acceptable use policies and what kind of data may be transmitted. There's certainly more than enough spam-endorsing ISP's out there. Forcing Qwest to transmit data they don't agree with isn't the right way to deal with the situation.

        --"I believe that isn't the case when the company is a monopoly, and possibly discriminating against you on speech. Yes, it could get that nasty."

        It could get that nasty, but it isn't in this case. Qwest isn't the only provider of Internet access available. Assume we stipulate one has a right to an Internet connection. That does not mean that one has a right to anything faster than 300baud. Certainly it shouldn't obligate Qwest into allocating this guy a high-speed line, or even any line at all, as there are plenty of dial-up ISP's out there just waiting for his business.

        --"Does the same analogy hold true for the snail mail industry? NO."

        The snail mail metaphor breaks down when compared to electronic spam, because snail mail is an economy of scale (larger print runs mean lower per-unit cost), and the burden of the price is on the sender ($.34 per parcel, until next week). In the case of electronic spam, there is no economy of scale (one e-mail costs as much to make as a million identical pieces), and the burden of the price is on the service provider, not the sender. This is what makes it so attractive for spammers, and why it is Qwest's right to refuse service.

        --"I dont like either solution. Either result sets a precident I DONT LIKE."

        Shareholder lawsuits to protect fiduciary interest are right and correct. When a customer is violating the terms of use and the service provider doesn't terminate the business relationship with the customer, who then goes on to cost the service provider an unreasonable amount of money, that's not looking out for shareholder interests. Corporations have an obligation to the shareholders to Increase Shareholder Value by Doing Stuff. That's the only reason all corporations in the entire world exist. When Doing Stuff actually LOSES money, they need to answer to shareholders. The mechanism in place for dealing with gross violations of this arrangement is the shareholder lawsuit. It wouldn't be setting a precedent; it would be following long standard precedent to file a shareholder lawsuit against a corporation and its chief for taking incorrect action.

      • Yes, it matters a LOT (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pjrc ( 134994 ) <paul@pjrc.com> on Sunday June 30, 2002 @01:41PM (#3796341) Homepage Journal
        ---"He seems to missing a fundamental point: You do not have a Constitutional right to an internet connection."

        However, data transmission SHOULD NOT be considered as long as you're paying the correct price for the bandwidth (perferrably per K-packet).

        That's crazy. Kiddie porn and death threats are absolutely intolerable. Paying to transmit obviously illegal speech doesn't legitimize it.

        Spam is a gray area, but it's certainly not true that you can transmit whatever you like without any limits as long as you've paid for the bandwidth.

        ---"If Qwest sees that they are losing customers because they provide internet access to you, they have a fiduciary duty to terminate their business relationship with you."

        Does the same analogy hold true for the snail mail industry? NO.

        Two words: Mail Fraud.

        There are plenty of long standing laws and rules that regulate postal mail. Aside from prohibiting fraudulent advertising (as much of today's spam is), correct identification of who sent the letter is also required.

        The spam idiots pay for the media, and pay for postage to my house. I just toss it away. Some are crafty and make it look like legit-like bills. Some promise prizes. It all goes to the shredder. My point is, if they pay through the nose for constand bandwidth, give them what they asked.

        It's much more accurate to compare electronic spam transmission to other electronic mediums, such as telephone solicitation and advertising by sending "junk" faxes.

        For telephone soliciation, a 1992 law regulates callers to identify themselves within 30 seconds. Companies who call are required to maintain "do not call lists", and the FCC imposes harsh penalties on soliciters who repeatedly call after requests to place that number on their do not call list. Many states have laws allowing individuals to sue for $200 to $1000 as well.

        For junk faxes, which are the closest analogy to spam email (same or similar message sent to many numbers, to be read by receipient when they notice it later on), JUNK FAXING IS ILLEGAL.

        Also illegal under the 1992 act is telephone solicitation (without opt-in or previous relationship) using pre-recorded messages. There are a few folks doing this today, as well as some companies junk faxing, and it is illegal.

        Before 1992, junk faxing was not against the law, just as today there is no federal law that prohibits sending unsolicited advertising by email. Today there is no law that regulates usasage of correct headers and identification of the party who transmitted the message. Today there is no (federal) law that requires actually honoring the receipients request to not receive future mailings.

        That's today. Soon there will be laws to regulate unsolicited commercial ads by email. Just as some advertisers abused telephones and faxes and lawmakers eventually responded, so they also will with spam.

        And they rightly should. Just because you've paid to send some data via an ISP, you should not have any more right to send fraudulent ads with forged headers than you would to send a similarly illegal message via the USPS with a fake return address. Just because you've paid to send that message gives you no more right to ignore "don't send me any more" than a telemarketer has under the 1992 law.

        There is quite a bit of legitimate use for email marketing, but at least IMHO, there's no excuse for forged headers, fraudulent advertising, and not properly honoring request to avoid more messages from the same sender. Sooner or later, these acts will be illegal (at least in the USA), and assholes like Ronnie Scelson are only serving to expedite the need for lawmakers to respond.

      • ---"If Qwest sees that they are losing customers because they provide internet access to you, they have a fiduciary duty to terminate their business relationship with you."

        Does the same analogy hold true for the snail mail industry? NO. The spam idiots pay for the media, and pay for postage to my house. I just toss it away. Some are crafty and make it look like legit-like bills. Some promise prizes. It all goes to the shredder. My point is, if they pay through the nose for constand bandwidth, give them what they asked.

        Mail advertisers pay the US Postal Service to send ads. While being sent, the advertisement is in the hands of the USPS 100%. Every medium that that advertisement travels through is owned by the USPS. The USPS is adequately compensated for thier work.

        This spammer only pays for his connection to Qwest. All the other countless ISPs and Telcos that have to carry his mail traffic don't see a penny.

        He's living in a five-bedroom mansion while he leaches off other people's resources.

        I say tar-and-feather the loser.
      • It's fine and dandy for him to pay quest for their services and send whatever he wants over their lines... It's the companies on the receiving end taking a hit.

        My company is forced to buy a full T1 line vs a burstable T1 due to the amount of bandwidth sucked up by spam. (Yes, literally, it's that bad.)

        I get hundreds of spams a day on email addresses that have been around since 1995 such as webmaster, info, billing, support, postmaster, root@

        Not a single one of those addresses has ever been opt-in to any list.

        Software is going to be the only way to stop spam. Legislation is only going to cause more problems in the long run.

        Spam should never ever be sent with invalid or mis-leading headers. There is a big difference from receiving a message from your favorite mailing list and receiving one from 587dajajkl@bbcidel.com.

        Why should I even have to pay for the extra electricity used for every single spam that enters my network? If one of my users requested it fine, they're paying for their service. But all the crap that goes to random accounts really sucks for us.

        It even forces me to turn off catchall accounts on certain domains.
      • They pay for the media?? WHAT? I am the one paying. Each spam email is costing me about 2 seconds to delete, network bandwidth, time waiting for email to download.

        They are not paying shit, they are abusing a free service: sending emails. If sending snail was FREE you'd have 2000 tons of paper to ditch every morning. Would you like that?

        They should pay per email sent. Any company profiting from sending unsolicited email should pay a price. Just pass a law saying they have to contribute 10c to the "".

        Then it'll be more even. Because everytime you receive spam you'd at least have the oportunity to think "ha, the poor bastart is now being chased by the IRS..."

        Snif
    • We all read an article from The Hartford Courant which complained about this looser:
      The growing flood of e-mail advertising has crashed Internet servers, clogged connections and cost business untold hours of wasted employee time. It has also forced millions of bleary-eyed Internet users to undertake the seemingly endless chore of clearing the electronic clutter from their in-box.

      I've yet to see any of us complain about the pop under and other adverts served up along with the ignorant and self rightous article. All forms of advertising on the net represent an abuse of a public resource and undermine it's pull nature. Mozilla refuses to download most of the offensive images, but 90% of home computer users cluelessly suck up all that crap with IE. That crap gets in the way of my email, ssh and sites I want to look at.

    • Reverend Matt, you're speaking my religion: too many folks raise the bloody flag of the 1st amendment when this is clearly commercial speech and commercial contract. Great post!

  • Opt-In is the spammer that sued its ISP.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @11:21AM (#3795850) Homepage
    PCWORLD did a story on Opt-In [pcworld.com] suing its ISP so they couldn't be disconnected:

    Opt-In Marketing Services, an e-mail advertising firm based in Mandeville, Louisiana, has filed suit against its ISP, the backbone provider, and three antispam organizations claiming restraint of trade and deceptive practices.

    Opt-In Marketing Services is one of several commercial e-mailers associated with Ronnie Scelson, a well-known spammer. However, Turner says that his company complies with all federal and state regulations for commercial e-mail and asks consumers for permission before sending advertisements to their in-boxes.

    In the suit, Turner claims the three antispam organizations are "sinister entities" that have conspired to put him out of business by blacklisting his Internet addresses. He says the organizations faked many of the complaints received by Qwest and CoVista, use phony names and addresses, and received donations from AOL and MSN in return for ignoring those large ISPs' efforts to send their own unsolicited commercial e-mail.

    "They have their own set of rules which have no basis in law," Turner claims in a written statement. "They threaten to blacklist anyone they do not like or who has not worked out a "deal' with them. They hide their identities, refuse to give their true locations, or addresses, [and] generate fake complaints."

    Of the three organizations, only Spamcop forwards complaints to ISPs or solicits donations. Julian Haight, president of Seattle-based Spamcop, admits it's possible someone faked the complaints, "but they'd have to be very smart geeks to forge the e-mail headers well enough to fool us." He also says his organization has never received money from any major ISP and does not engage in reciprocal deals, noting that Spamcop recently blacklisted AOL for a few hours after a series of spam complaints.

    Spamhaus.org director Steve Linford says it's highly unlikely that anyone sent fake complaints, given that it's possible to easily verify e-mail messages by checking the logs at the ISP from which they're sent. Rather than hide from spammers, Linford has posted explicit instructions on how to locate him on the news.admin.net-abuse.e-mail newsgroup.

    Linford adds that Opt-In Marketing might get more than it bargained for. "If a spammer sued us we'd go straight for discovery, find out their real names and addresses, and forward that information to the FTC and their state attorney general," he says

    The e-mailer claims that CoVista Communications of Little Falls, New Jersey, was wrong to cut off part of its Internet access on April 30. According to the suit, the shutdown resulted from complaints received by CoVista and its backbone provider, Qwest Communications of Denver, from Spamcop.net, Spamhaus.org, and the Spam Prevention Early Warning System (SPEWS). All three organizations operate so-called blacklists that enable subscribers to block e-mail coming from suspected spam operations.

  • He's got one thing right... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Howzer ( 580315 ) <grabshot&hotmail,com> on Sunday June 30, 2002 @11:21AM (#3795854) Homepage Journal
    The spammer speaks: "... If they didn't ask for it, they don't want it. And it's not that simple of a business."

    He's right - it isn't. But it damn well should be.

    If ever there was a sentence that motivates you to support anti-spamming groups [cauce.org], the spammer's words above should be it.

    If I didn't ask for it I don't want it.

    I joined up just now. You?

  • Opt-In Marketing? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by weave ( 48069 ) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @11:22AM (#3795855) Journal
    Opt-in is the name of his company? So, he's claiming all 80 million addresses asked to be on his lists?

    I consider his claim of great wealth and money making to have the same level of truthfulness...

    • Re:Opt-In Marketing? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 )
      > Opt-in is the name of his company? So, he's claiming all 80 million addresses asked to be on his lists?

      From he NANAE FAQ [cs.uu.nl]

      [Rule #0: Spam is theft.]

      Rule #1: Spammers lie.
      Rule #2: If you think a spammer is telling the truth, see Rule #1.
      Rule #3: Spammers are stupid.

      (Krugel's Corollary: Spammer lies are really stupid.)

      "Opt-In Marketing" hits Rule #1, Rule #2 and the corollary - in its name alone. And by getting that far with just its name, I'd say that trips Rule #3 to boot.

      There's a fascinating thread in news.admin.net-abuse.email ("COURT: Opt in Marketing vs [SPEWS, SPAMHAUS, SPAMCOP, QUEST(sic), COVISTA and Steve Linford(of Idaho?)]" about what Scelson's up to. This article in nanae [google.com] provides an interesting perspective.

      Between Scelson biting off more than he can chew (and what a coincidence, now showing up on the press's radar), and Alan Ralsky being sued by Verizon [spamcon.org], this could be a long, hot summer for the spammers.

      Me? I'm keeping a bag of popcorn handy whenever I read nanae. Seeing these two go down in court will be a delight. I can only hope a certain Mr. Haberli is next on the docket. That'd be three major spam rings in serious d00d00.

  • Time wasted deleting emails (Score:5, Insightful)

    by qazxsw ( 207003 ) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @11:23AM (#3795863)
    At 80 million emails per day and 3 seconds average to delete each, that means 7.6 _years_ are wasted of people's lives for each day he blasts his spam.

  • Small problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by scotfl ( 312954 ) <scotfl@gmail.com> on Sunday June 30, 2002 @11:25AM (#3795867) Homepage Journal
    First we have the description of his software:

    The program allows him to control every aspect of the outgoing e-mail - including masking the sender, randomly changing the subject line or disguising the point of origin.
    Just one more click and the e-mail floodgates open. In six minutes, the program has fired off half a million e-mail messages and continues cranking them out nonstop.
    Scelson, who designed the software, says it will penetrate virtually any system designed to stop ads from reaching the intended mailbox.

    Then we find out his ethics:
    Scelson sees a big difference between what he does - which he considers proper e-mail marketing - and indiscriminate, anonymous e-mail advertising - which he regards as true spam. Such distinctions, however, are likely to be lost on Internet users whose e-mail boxes are jammed with advertising.

    Now, I can't really bring those two together. He spoofs all sender information, but doesn't consider his mailing to be anonymous? Perhaps his company name (Opt-In) is actually descriptive. That is, the people he's mailing have actually opted-in somehow.
    For one, Scelson says, Opt-In Marketing concentrates on sending e-mail to people with accounts at large, consumer-oriented services such as Hotmail, Yahoo! and America Online and tries to avoid e-mail addresses at businesses.
    For another, he says, all e-mails from Opt-In Marketing include a way for recipients to get their address removed from the company's database. Some mailers are suspected of using this as a technique to identify working addresses, but Scelson claims he honors removal requests.

    Oh, so he harvest email addresses, and then provides an out-out mechanism, well, I have to admit, I'm underwhelmed. But hey, at least he tries to avoid business addresses. Although, I can't really figure out how he does that, since ISPs are businesses, and their corporate email accounts are usually on the same domain as their clients. Nopt to mention the people who actually use msn/hotmail/etc. accounts for business.

    And the final kick in the head?
    "If they don't want it, they throw it in the trash," he says.

    Except, of course, for the fact that I pay for my bandwidth, and thus it costs me money to download his spam. Perhaps, since he's such a nice, down-to-earth guy (worked his way out of the trailer park, he did) he would like to repay me the money downloading his 'advertisements' and opting-out of his 'service' costs me?

    • it costs me money to download his spam.

      What ISP are you using? You're getting ripped off.

      Perhaps, since he's such a nice, down-to-earth guy (worked his way out of the trailer park, he did) he would like to repay me the money downloading his 'advertisements' and opting-out of his 'service' costs me?

      How much is that?

      • What ISP are you using? You're getting ripped off.

        I have a co-located server for which I pay for bandwidth. On this server I have many domains and many e-mail addresses. I get a lot of spam, much of it duplicated across many or most of my addresses (especially the new #$@%$#@ "zoo website" and "barnyard fun" crap). And I host domains for others, who pay a flat rate for a POP account. So yes, it does cost. Maybe not huge dollars yet, but it might.

  • I like freedom, but I hate spam. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @11:30AM (#3795887) Homepage
    We should treat SPAM differently than regular mail marketing, because it can, and probably will, cost the end-user a lot of money when he ends up paying for bandwidth use.

    When I get snail-mail spam (not in caps because it's slightly less evil) I may have the inconvenience of picking it up, and then throwing it away, but I don't pay postage.

    Unfortunately, in the Internet the receiver, and everyone in the middle, also pays in resources, and since most users pay for their bandwidth indirectly (and will soon pay directly), it increases the cost of Internet for the consumer. The consumer is paying to read ads he doesn't want to read in the first place and that are not subsidizing any service, and that's not good.

    Imagine if you were forced to accept collect-calls and every single tele-marketer in the nation took advantage of that.

    The Internet may be self-policing, but we still reserve the right to prosecute for "real world crimes". If, say, a website run by bearded linux hippies systematically uses my credit card information for identity/credit fraud, I want them to be legally prosecuted, "filtering them" (not buying from them and spreading the word) is not enough.

    SPAM should be treated just like having someone stealing your cable connection, electricity, water or other utilities. There are real-world, monetary damages, which may be small or may accumulate to something significant over time, but either way it's not legal and there may be some penalties involved.

    The alternative is regulating through code, but redefining the email standard so as to avoid SPAM would be problematic and (at least the solutions that come to mind) possibly raise some privacy issues.

  • Ah HA! (Score:5, Funny)

    by rkent ( 73434 ) <rkent AT post DOT harvard DOT edu> on Sunday June 30, 2002 @11:32AM (#3795903)
    Ah HA! Ronnie Scelson. So THAT's who's behind all these "opt-in deals" advertisements... perfect. Now I know where to send my new terms of service for my *3* addresses which are constantly bombarded by Mr. Scelson's ads, and were of course never opted in to anything.

    Terms of service: $10 reading fee for each email received after delivery of this notice. I bill monthly. Terms are non-negotiable.

  • If he's running such a legitamite business... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by max cohen ( 163682 ) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @11:33AM (#3795905)
    If he's running such a legitamite business, why does he have to hide who he is when he's conducting business? The last time I got an advertising flyer from Ford, it didn't have Car Sellers, Inc. or Max Cohen Motors as the return address...

  • Cost them some money (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gentlewizard ( 300741 ) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @11:38AM (#3795925)
    "For each person who clicks on the e-mail to visit the travel company's website, the company earns $1 - a fee roughly in line with industry norms."

    Maybe we're going about this all wrong. If every time we click through it costs the sponsor $1, maybe we should ALL click through. Then not buy the product. If the ratio of costs to purchases drops, business won't consider email a viable form of promotion.

    • Re:Cost them some money (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ceejayoz ( 567949 ) <cj@ceejayoz.com> on Sunday June 30, 2002 @11:59AM (#3796002) Homepage Journal
      Heck, post his links on Slashdot... two million Slashdot users click, we Slashdot the site AND cost them $2 million AND they can't pay the spammer so he gets all pissy at them! :-D
    • Economically, if we did begin to click through on all of our e-mail, the sponsors would stop paying $1 per click... the price would drop. And if the cost dropped to, say, $0.01 per click, the cost of spam advertising would be so much lower that it would be accessable by a much larger number of advertisers.

      I don't think what you're proposing would receive your desired result.

      ::Colz Grigor
    • This would also enable spammers to advertise insanely high clickthrough ratios- which will only further their business.

      It's a good idea in a closed world, but considering they can always get another customer, and you're simply improving their pitch, I would have to say that this is an insanely bad idea.

    • "If the ratio of costs to purchases drops, business won't consider email a viable form of promotion."

      I'd put it this way:

      "If the ratio of costs to purchases drops, cost will be revised."

      After all, they are trying to measure purchases, not click through. You can harm the clickthrough as a measure of purchases. But you are not making spam any less viable. They will only need another measurement of purchases or revised price per click.

  • Murder Him. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by YahoKa ( 577942 )
    /.ers: we should pool our resources and setup a fund to put hits out on people like this.

    • Re:Murder Him. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by erroneus ( 253617 )
      Yes, we can dream about it... but that is all I recommend that we ever do about it.

      I do, however, advocate criminal mischief such as throwing eggs at his house and car... picketting his place of business is also a good thing to do... actually, that's probably exactly what should be done. If we actually made it bigger than Mardi Gras, it could get some serious attention from the public. From that, we can convince the 80,000 people out there who will apparently buy anything, to not answer SPAM and therefore not to pay the spammers for their misdeeds.

      So let's talk about public gatherings instead of lynching.

      I do believe that if one spammer dies as a result of being a spammer, it would make a serious statement but it wouldn't slow anything down... you'd have to kill two or three of them to make your cause serious. I can't get behind that though... who knows what I might be doing that pisses people off enough to make them kill me. :)

      (BTW, I've heard that pulling out wires is an effective method of disconnection... just a thought)

  • "just another vehicle" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lumpish Scholar ( 17107 ) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @12:12PM (#3796039) Homepage Journal
    Scelson is unapologetic about sending (spam). To him, Internet e-mail is just another vehicle for advertising - like billboards, newspapers and the sides of buses.
    ... he said, as he prepared to spray-paint billboards, post his own signs over the ones the bus companies agreed to run, and to hack into the newspapers' typography software to run his ads instead of the ones accepted by the papers.

  • Wonder if... (Score:3, Funny)

    by puppetman ( 131489 ) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @12:16PM (#3796060) Homepage
    this guy is going to get the shit kicked out of him, now that his name and hometown have been posted on an site known for being passionately anti-spam.

    I didn't think that article was that positive - they did talk about some of the evils of spam:

    "Once merely an annoyance, junk e-mail is quickly reaching epidemic proportions in cyberspace. Billions of such messages regularly crisscross the Internet, pitching everything from herbal remedies to X-rated websites.

    The growing flood of e-mail advertising has crashed Internet servers, clogged connections and cost business untold hours of wasted employee time. It has also forced millions of bleary-eyed Internet users to undertake the seemingly endless chore of clearing the electronic clutter from their in-box."
  • someone will just shoot him..

    For al the 80plus spam I get EACH day... spam that I do NOT opt in for that all says that I ahve opted in for the service...

  • ABUSERS: Ronald R. Scelson
    [Birthdate: 12-11-71 or 72, New Orleans, LA, married]
    cajunspam@aol.com / avsrscelson2000@yahoo.com / dff@yahoo.com
    Amy Hoolahan [wife/sister?]
    43 CYPRESS MEADOWS LOOP
    SLIDELL, LA 70460 US
    Home: (504) 646-2225
    Work: 504-649-6248

  • I from Louisiana, New Orleans Close to Slidell (Score:3, Informative)

    by puto ( 533470 ) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @12:57PM (#3796225) Homepage
    First the article although informative was a little uninformed and written withmucho journalistic license.

    Slidell is drained swampland. Not know in Louisiana for its bayous. Bayou towns are a little more south and west of new orleans and run along Highway 90. There is nary a cajun in those parts. Unless they are transplants.

    Slidell is where you go to live when you can get outta the double wide. It is a white trash suburb(pardon if youlive there but it is not one of the nicest places in Louisiana. Reclaimed swamp that happens to be near a an ultra rich area, but not included.

    Slidell is another case of people moving to the burbs and talking about how great it is. Slidell's greatedt claim to fame is it is a great place to piss off the interstate on your way to New Orleans.

    As for the guy, yeah he is a shit. But he probably does make bank. Consider the sheer numbers of the unwashed still out there who still think the internet is a virtual gold mine. Say he gets 20 of those suckers a month to sign up at a grand a pop. Who is the real fool? Do the math 80 million email adresses are 80 potential million customers for him as well.

    Sometimes people pay all of us ungodly amounts of cash for tech services(85 bucks an hour to install a printer or put the new Dell box on the lan.) Us tech guys do not have a stellar rep either.

    Email campaigns do make money, for the person selling them. I have been offered good money to do them, and haven't, but depending on my job situation you never know.

    Puto
    • Sometimes people pay all of us ungodly amounts of cash for tech services(85 bucks an hour to install a printer or put the new Dell box on the lan.) Us tech guys do not have a stellar rep either.

      That's no comparision. There are thousands of companies out there that can do tech support and you're free to pick whichever you like. Tech support is a market while spamming is a con game.

      If you think hourly rates are too high in general, start your own business with employees on salary and tell me if you can make a profit providing support on location at 10 dollar an hour.
  • This little weasel is just the middleman. If he was shut down the sleezeballs that pay him to spam people would just find another little weasel to send out the spam. It's just like trying to stop illegal drugs by arresting street level dealers, someone else steps in as soon as you bust a pusher.

    To stop the spamming you have to go after the people paying them. A Good starting point would be ISPs blocking the IP addresses of sites that pay people to spam. Then spamming would result in fewer page hits instead of more hits, and cost them money. It would also stop the spammers that are sending the crap from Russia, Asia, and other areas where ISPs are glad to even get spammer biz. Another way to cut down on spamming would be for the Feds to start arresting the scam artists running Pyramids and other schemes that are allready illegal fraud operations. Scam Spamming with a snail mail return address should ammount to advertising your location so the feds know where to find you.

  • forged headers are spam (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fermion ( 181285 ) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @01:47PM (#3796357) Homepage Journal
    a mouse-click, he launched his latest e-mailing software, which appears on the flat-screen monitor perched on his desk. The program allows him to control every aspect of the outgoing e-mail - including masking the sender, randomly changing the subject line or disguising the point of origin.

    And herein lies the problem. Even if we assume that he has 80 million valid registered customers (all legitimately obtained and verified), he is still engaging in tactics that should be illegal. An email, particular a commercial email, should have a real and accurate return and from address, and should have real transmission headers. If these are forged , the email is spam, even if there is an opt in list.

    Furthermore, i feel the spammer should get sued by those greatly affected by the act. For instance, if the forged address is a domain not related to the spammer, that domain should have every right to sue the spammer for costs of dealing with the misdirected replies, the cost of dealing with angry customers, and the costs associated with defamation of the domain. The ISP that the spammer is doing business with should be able to cut off the spammer immediately, sue for the costs of resources used to send the spam, and any other costs associated with the spam. Maybe, in both cases, treble costs.

    Let me be clear, forged headers should a sufficient condition for a commercial email to be considered spam and invoke any all liabilities associated with spamming.

    Scelson, who designed the software, says it will penetrate virtually any system designed to stop ads from reaching the intended mailbox.

    Of course this is another problem. I may in fact want to receive commercial email. That does not mean that I want it in my in box. Perhaps I have another place, that I review daily, that I want to filter commercial emails into. It seems reasonable that a reputable sender of commercial email would want to help me in this endevour, and in the process create a positive relationship, by using consistent mail headers. For instance the New York Times does this. On the other hand, a scum of the earth spammer, no disrespect to scum intended, would actively try to thwart my reasonable and rational system of prioritizing emails in hope of forcing me to view a message.

    Furthermore, don't we have legislation about programs that actively penetrate systems without the owner's consent? Seems like this might be a good application of that law.

  • And this guys interview with al capone? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cluge ( 114877 ) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @01:57PM (#3796400) Homepage
    This guy should have interviewed Al Capone. He could have told us how great the protection service was and how it filled a niche in the chicago market.

    The author fails to mention what happens when he "bounces" messages off from those "Europeon" servers. Things like, legitimate businesses can't get their e-mail, servers crash, bandwidth charges are paid by the the people that left the relay open. Oh yeah, add to that his quote "I can touch 80 million people". If my mail servers are anything to judge by, I'd say the MOST he can touch is 1 million, generally we get more bounces from spammers than we get actual e-mail.

    A liar, a thief and a con man. I sure am glad the Hartford paper decided to write about this guy. Please take a second and tell them how you feel about their article.

    The Hartford Courant (CTNOW-DOM)
    285 Broad Street
    Hartford, CT 06115
    US

    Domain Name: CTNOW.COM

    Administrative Contact:
    DNSADMIN (DNS55-ORG) tis-dnsadmin@TRIBUNE.COM
    Tribune Company
    435 N. Michigan Ave Suite 917
    Chicago, IL 60611
    US
    312-222-2814
    Fax- - 312-222-4393
    Technical Contact:
    TIS IN, TECHNICAL CONTACT (TIT3-ORG) tis-dnsadmin@TRIBUNE.COM
    TRIBUNE COMPANY
    435 NORTH MICHIGAN AVE Suite 815
    CHICAGO, IL 60611
    USA
    312-222-2814
    Fax- 312-222-4393
    cluge
    • You know, when I woke up this morning and groggily treaded over to the newspaper and saw this article. Reading it was quite literally how I started my day, and I enjoyed it.

      Perhaps the author could have made the article into an attack on the Spam King, but instead he presented the facts and let the reader decide. Most readers don't need to be told how annoying spam is.

      Of course, maybe I'm viewing this in the wrong light because I already knew how much I hated this guy before I read the paper; someone who doesn't really mind spam or have email may have interpreted it differently. But for the mostpart, it was clear to me that this article was not condoning what he does.

      It's journalism. I don't think it's worth being put on the front page, but there's no reason to get pissed at the Courant for it. Write an editoral about it and mail it to the courant. But posting information about Tribune to slashdot really suggests you're more mad than that; to me it suggests that you want the writer fired or somesuch. Relax a bit. The Courant didn't spam me.

      • I disagree, this journalist didn't just "not take a side". He totally ignored one side giving it short shrift at best.

        Any real journalist would have asked about the legal implications. They would have also asked about the moral implications of stealing somone elses bandwidth. To not truly mention those things shows the authors LACK of journalistic integrity (you know, get the full story, the truth).

        The fact is that the con-man/thief mentions bouncing mail off from Europeon servers. Depending on which country he was "bouncing off" he was breaking the law. The con man mentions disguises the senders identity violating many local and state laws (this is not mentioned).

        No sir, I don't want the guy fired, he can say what he will. I want slashdotters to let the paper know that this lack of research and failure to present the whole story doesn't un noticed. Telling half the story isn't satisfactory, or truthful. Here are some additional points missed.

        1. He has clearly violated the AUP of almost any provider he has touched. (i.e. he disregards the rules of the road)The paper merely says that it's anti-spam activists got him cut off, not his actions. Not mentioning a BREACH OF CONTRACT seems rather *ahem* slanted
        2. He has no qualms with stealing people's bandwith in Europe or Asia. (Remember many people pay by bandwidth for service, it's not just flat rate for their Internet access)
        3. He claims 80 million real addresses (yeah right), this seems to be a claim that would be hard to verify, it should at least be questioned instead of reprinted as truth. (I'll be happy to provide a list of 10,000 addresses that bounce at least once a week because they don't exist and have NEVER existed, yet they get spam.)
        4. He doesn't follow his own rules, guess how many hits "opt-in marketing" has that include my domains (or my clients). I won't even go into removal requests.

        Spam is theft. I'll relax when the thieves are put where they belong, back in jail. Apparently some haven't been stolen from enough to care. I've not been so lucky.

        cluge
  • More than 99.9 percent of the recipients may ignore that come-on. But if the e-mails go out by the millions, only a small fraction need respond to make the job pay off big.

    This kind of reminds me of a scam to make money as a "psychic" i heard awhile ago. You send off mass mailings to lots of people "predicting" an even that has 50/50 probability of happening, saying it will happen to half the people, and it won't to the other half. Keep track of what you tell which people, and after the event happens (or doesn't) then repeat with the people that you got it right for the first time. After the third or fourth mailing, you can start charging them for your amazing psychic insights.

    Presumably the psychic hotlines work the same way. The small percent that are given an accurate (though accidental) prediction rave about it more than enough to make up for the majority who grumble about lost money and walk away.

    Come to think of it, this is also the exact same principle behind trolling and flamebaiting on the web. Doesn't matter how many people resist the temptation to respond as long as some small percentage give in.

  • Here's what you do.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by defile ( 1059 ) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @05:05PM (#3797034) Homepage Journal

    Everyone who lives within 10 miles of him should get a cinder block, write their favorite spam on it("MAKE MONEY FAST!"), and drop it on his property. On a weekly basis.

    After 20,000 or so maybe he'll start seeing the point.

  • Anti-Spam idea (Score:2, Interesting)

    by steve802 ( 99297 )
    This article gives me an idea ... it says "Opt-In Marketing sends out 80 million e-mails offering vacation packages. For each person who clicks on the e-mail to visit the travel company's website, the company earns $1 - a fee roughly in line with industry norms." What if instead of sending spam to the Deleted folder or filtering it to the bit bucket, filters were written to "click back" to any links in a spam first ... after a while, someone would figure out that the $2000 campaign is now costing $400,000 but generating the same amount of business as ever before.

    Sounds like a job for SpamCop.

Slashdot Top Deals

A Fortran compiler is the hobgoblin of little minis.

Close