Accused Spammer to Debate SpamCop Founder 187
Weezle writes "Wired News is reporting that OptInRealBig's Scott Richter is going to debate SpamCop's Julian Haight in public next month. Richter had the nerve to file a lawsuit against SpamCop recently claiming that the blacklist keeps his company from sending out 'marketing messages.' (in lay terms, spam) Not surprisingly, Richter himself is being sued for $20 million by NY Att. General Eliot Spitzer. Sounds like it's going to be a real nasty fight."
I went to a fight, and a debate broke out... (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if the referee stops this fight early. I'm expecting both of them to fight dirty... Julian Haight tries hard but often swings first and aims later, while Scott Richter says he plays by the rules but morals have never really stood in his way.
There's no way they're gonna go the scheduled twelve rounds!
Re:I went to a fight, and a debate broke out... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I went to a fight, and a debate broke out... (Score:2, Informative)
oh my god.. if you had only posted this last week when i had a few (mod) points to unload. Somebody take care of this guy please!!
Opt-Out Real Quick (Score:4, Informative)
OptInRealBig.com, LLC.
(303) 464-8164
info@optinbig.com
1333 W 120th AVE
Suite 101
Westminster, CO 80234
US
Re:Opt-Out Real Quick (Score:5, Informative)
You have to do exactly what everybody tells you not to do, follow the instructions at the bottom at the bottom of the e-mail.
True, most of the non-ethical spammers will just target you for more spam if you respond in that way, but CAN-SPAM requires a law-compliant spammer to honor that system, and Richter claims that's how his company works.
Re:Opt-Out Real Quick (Score:3, Funny)
you have unsubscribed from the Viagra News List.
here is a message from the Viagra Info List...
Re:Opt-Out Real Quick (Score:2, Informative)
Actually they can't. At least, not under the terms of CAN-SPAM:
"(A) IN GENERAL.--If a recipient makes a request using a mechanism provided pursuant to paragraph (3) not to receive some or any commercial electronic mail messages from such sender, then it is unlawful--
...
(iv) for the sender, or any other person who knows that the recipient has made such a request, to sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise transfer or release the electronic mail address of the recipient (including through any transaction o
Re:Opt-Out Real Quick (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Opt-Out Real Quick (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps because it overrode state antispam laws, which were more strict?
Re:Opt-Out Real Quick (Score:3, Insightful)
Yea he says he's so law compliant then why does his spam server come knocking at the door of my mail server about 300 times a day. Funny how some of the bounces back to his server are from addresses that haven't been active for over four years. Isn't a nasty reject mail message enough to opt-out??
I'll be happy to come with a dull knife to strip away his flesh 1 square inch at a time.
You k
Re:Opt-Out Real Quick (Score:2, Informative)
"Unsubscribe from ALL lists on our system. Don't want any email at all from our network? No problem. Unsubscribe your email address using the box below. Please note that it can take up to five days to be completely removed from all lists in this fashion."
Whether you actually want to do this is, of course, your decision.
free speech??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:free speech??? (Score:2, Insightful)
exactly right.. and if they don't want to leave you alone, you get something similar to how i dealt with a street corner 'preacher' downtown one afternoon. Despite my initial 'leave me alone' stare, he felt he needed an audience with me.. surely to tell me that i was damned, or somesuch nonsense. Well, the crazy bastard kept on my heels for about a
Re:Opt-Out Real Quick (Score:2)
Like Manson debating Bugliosi, this is. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Like Manson debating Bugliosi, this is. (Score:2)
Here's some news: spam != mass murder, regardless of whatever spin you want to apply
I'd be really interested in watching this debate, as I'm genuinely curious how it is that OIRB see themselves as being hard done by in this instance. Regardless of the name, SpamCop isn't acting as any sort of global email traffic cop - if SpamCop "blocks spam", it's because ISPs are taking SpamCop's recommendations and acting upon them.
It's absolutely no different to the Alexis de Tocqu
Re:Like Manson debating Bugliosi, this is. (Score:5, Insightful)
50,000,000,000 seconds is
833333333 minutes is
13888888 hours is
578703 days is
1585 years
That's 1585 man-years of wasted time every single day.
Assuming a person lives to the age of 80 years, the total wasted time adds up to almost 20 people. The entire lives of 20 people, wasted EVERY day to spam. It's fucking mass murder.
Re:Like Manson debating Bugliosi, this is. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Like Manson debating Bugliosi, this is. (Score:2)
$0.02.
Re:Like Manson debating Bugliosi, this is. (Score:2)
Watch what you say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Uhm... two guys suing each other in public and they're not going to talk about the legal alligations either has leveled about the other? Sounds like some lawyers won't be members of the Bar Association much longer.
PPV (Score:2, Funny)
Re:PPV (Score:2, Funny)
Are they going to be debating in a steel cage?
Where is this held? (Score:5, Funny)
If by nasty (Score:3, Funny)
Re:If by nasty (Score:4, Funny)
Re:If by nasty (Score:2)
Proof of Opt-In (Score:5, Insightful)
How can we, the spam victims, prove that we NEVER gave consent to such-and-such website?
Re:Proof of Opt-In (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the burdon should be on the spammer to prove that you DID opt-in, upon request.
The thing is, even if this guy's business was 100% legit, which everyone know's isn't anyways, it's a moot point for the vast majority of us. We get so much spam, how are we supposed to know that one is opt-outable and other one will put you to the top of the spammer's list?
OptInRealBig is not the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
They're annoying, but they're not the problem. I used to get OptInRealBig messages. I clicked on the "unsubscribe" links a few times. They stopped coming.
All of Richter's emails (at least that I've seen) come with contact information for the sending company and unsubscribe instructions as required by law. And as far as I've seen, the unsubscribe instructions work. If anybody here has unsubscribed from OIRB and still gotten mailings, that's different. But as far as I've seen, OIRB uses real reply-to's, real
Re:OptInRealBig is not the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Proof of Opt-In (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, that's impossible.
If the recipients have given consent, it's not spam by definition.
How can we, the spam victims, prove that we NEVER gave consent to such-and-such website?
You can't prove a negative except by exhaustion. It should be up to them to prove you gave consent.
Re:Proof of Opt-In (Score:2)
Opt in does not nescessarily mean that you said to the spammer "Hey send me some info about my penis." It means you gave your e-mail address to a peice of software that said somewhere in it's agreements that it was free to do what it wanted with your e-mail address, (Or spyware). Which is legitimate.
What isn't legit is when they track down your e-mail from a website and start spamming, (Or start spamming your blog/bbs which I am getting these days). This the government could easily crack down
Re:Proof of Opt-In (Score:3, Interesting)
Legsilation like that in Scandinavia, and being introduced inthe rest of the EU is ok.
marketing-material sent to individually-adressable (such as sms, fax, email) electronical devices are only allowed if the recipient has given prior, informed consent, *or* if you have a running business-relationship with the customer.
The burden of proof is on the one sending the marketing-material ofcourse. There's no way anyone could prove that they did *not* in any way give perm
Re:Proof of Opt-In (Score:2)
Thinking Big (Score:3, Funny)
Lemmee lone!! (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO the debate between these two should end right there. This is like a "do not call" list. People are bombarded with advertising at every turn. We should have a right to be left alone.
Re:Lemmee lone!! (Score:3, Funny)
I believe the saying goes. No prize for guessing which side of the debate i'm on. I just got my first penis enlargement spam! "Hahahha, Little Pe-nis U Have scup docket view" it said. After ~7 years online, I feel like a real internet user at last!
Re:Lemmee lone!! (Score:2, Interesting)
And that right includes not only the right to be left alone by spammers, but the right to be left alone by anyone else we do not wish to hear. A demonstrator's right to be heard does not trump my right to be left alone. Any attempt to speak to me when I do not wish to listen is not "the right of free speech", it is an assault on me, and I should be free to take appropriate action. You are free to say what you want to people who want to hear you; you are not enti
Re:Lemmee lone!! - quotes from US judges (Score:2)
Regulation of Blacklists? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Regulation of Blacklists? (Score:4, Insightful)
What the various federal and state laws about such companies do is require them to provide individuals with reports about themselves upon request, and follow a specific despute resolution process should you ever claim that something they are reporting about you is inaccurate.
Re:Regulation of Blacklists? (Score:3, Insightful)
NO
They only start to "care" after you have filed a complaint about the accuracy of your "credit history"; and by then, the damage can already have been done.
Imagine this: You applied for a car loan, you were approved. However, your credit wasn't "good enough" so your interest on your car loan is higher.
You thought all was fine and dandy until 2 years later, you try to buy a house. Lending company turns you do
Re:Regulation of Blacklists? (Score:2)
Re:Regulation of Blacklists? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Regulation of Blacklists? (Score:2)
Close... It's "granted" directly by the lenders, who are working within the agreement made between the lender and the borrower. It's indirect only to the borrower. It could be argued that the Fair Credit Reporting Act was needed probably because credit reporting agencies and loan institutions have probably been regulated in the US to the point where problems that would normally be fixed within the marketplace were no longer fixable.
OK Fine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OK Fine (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is with over SpamCOP's public claim that Richter sends e-mails to people who have never opted-in.
Richter claims that any recipient claiming that they never opted-in is wrong. He'd refute SpamCOP's claim, but SpamCOP refuses to turn over the e-mail addresses of the people complaining to them, so he can't check his records to find out how the address got there.
You most definitely have a right to publish an opinion, but when you accuse somebody of something, it turns into a matter of fact. If you're publishing facts that aren't true, that's where libel starts...
Re:OK Fine (Score:2)
Where is this public claim, I would like to read it.
Richter's claim is semantic. (Score:2, Interesting)
It doesn't matter what hoops he jumped through. All that matters as that in the eyes of consumers his company was in error, and cannot be trusted with what is normally benign personal information.
Spam is a statement about the unwelcomness of the email, not whether someone might have left a "I hate puppies" checkbox unchecked. If the people recieving the mail s
Re:OK Fine (Score:4, Insightful)
Merger with SCO? (Score:2, Funny)
hrmm (Score:2, Insightful)
marketing messages do not always equal spam. For example, Apple sends me marketing messages all the time, and they're not spam.
also, in 'lay terms' (think you mean "layman's terms") 'spam' would be "sending you mail you don't ask for", and 'marketing messages' are not always 'spam'.
i don't mean to get on a rant here, but also:
if you have to explain 'marketing messages' also explain 'spamcop' and 'blacklist' and 'OptInRealBig'. explaining what mark
Re:hrmm (Score:3, Insightful)
also, in 'lay terms' (think you mean "layman's terms") 'spam' would be "sending you mail you don't ask for", and 'marketing messages' are not always 'spam'.
This can't be emphasized enough! I've seen plenty of people call emails from companies that they have a business relationship with "spam." Yet, these are the same people who don't bother to uncheck the "I do not wish to rece
Re:hrmm (Score:2)
Doesn't mean they are wrong. Some zealots are quite correct.
Credibility should be given to the message, not the messenger, and only after careful consideration. People are more often misled by people they trust than people they don't trust.
It's not called spam (Score:3, Funny)
That's called High Volume Email Deployment, not spam.
And Julian Haight is not Anti High Volume Email Deployment, he's anti-spam.
Re:It's not called spam (Score:2)
That's called High Volume Email Deployment, not spam.
Really? I thought the technical term was Strategic High Importance Telecommunications . . .
How many people? (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope the line to serve him will not be too long.
Spitzer: Not someone to mess with (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Spitzer: Not someone to mess with (Score:2)
Re:Spitzer: Not someone to mess with (Score:2)
and b) I have issues with grand juries as well. If I may be brought to trial because of a grand jury, and I am being forced to testify before them, then my testimony is being used against me in violation of the 5th IMNHO. and I should have the right to a lawyer.
The article states that originally anyone testifying, etc. under the statute pretty much had automatic immunity from prosecution, but that was largely remove
Debate vs Shouting Match (Score:2)
Can we mark this whole thread flamebait/flamewar?
Re:Debate vs Shouting Match (Score:2)
that's what I get for posting from an XDA2 with a stamp-sized screen
You guys are slipping.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:You guys are slipping.... (Score:2)
Snailmail ? Loser. I have a cruise missile i bought in the army surplus store, and i'm going to use it to do some GOOD!
Same comment as I made to the Chinese spammers! (Score:2)
Lets just say those of you who are NRA members will appreciate it ... ;-)
ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT (Score:5, Informative)
Appellants challenge the constitutionality of Title III of the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967, 81 Stat. 645, 39 U.S.C. 4009 ( 1964 ed., Supp. IV), under which a person may require that a mailer remove his name from its mailing lists and stop all future mailings to the householder. The appellants are publishers, distributors, owners, and operators of mail order houses, mailing list brokers, and owners and operators of mail service organizations whose business activities are affected by the challenged statute.
A new law had recently been passed whereby people could demand that unsolicited pr0n no longer be mailed to their houses. The homeowners didn't want free samples mailed to their kids. The pr0n magazines wanted to show everybody what they were missing and claimed absolute right to do so under the guise of the First Amendment. (Sound like a familiar battle?) The Supreme Court found against the postal spammers.
Some very relevant passages from the decision:
Why attack OptInBig? (Score:2, Interesting)
They also don't make and distribute spyware, as far as I know. Clicking a simple unsubscribe link is much better than deleting spyware.
Plus, I always make sure to uncheck the special offers checkboxes. I'd say it's the web
It's a debate, not an attack (Score:2)
Their website may be painted by Michelangelo and their ads written by Shakespeare; what counts is whether they send unsolicited advertising or not. If that unsubscribe link is useful for anything besides unsubscribing from something you voluntarily and knowingly subscribed to, they are spammers. Do they have a corresponding subscribe link on ev
Re:Why attack OptInBig? (Score:3, Interesting)
Seconds before writing this response, I created an email alias called "optinbig@domainwitheld.com" and instructed optinbig.com to unsubscribe me from all.
Mind you I JUST CREATED this address and it has never before been used for anything. If it starts getting spam, then it's clear they are using the information to send more spam.
I expect to receive spam within the next hour personally...
D'oh! (Score:2)
You just posted that address to slashdot.
Try the experiment with a new address, this time not posting it to an email harvest field.
And, by the way: You could still get spam from address guessing spam programs.
Re:D'oh! (Score:2)
Re:D'oh! (Score:2)
Use example.com next time allright? That one is reserved by IANA for crap like that. If you want to use an example domain, use example.com, don't make up your own.
(I don't really own domainwitheld.com, but I was just trying to prove a point here).
Re:D'oh! (Score:2)
D'oh! Aargh! (Score:2)
You're right, of course. My brain must have throttled down when I posted.
Open mouth. Insert foot.
Re:D'oh! (Score:2)
Re:Why attack OptInBig? (Score:2)
Re:Why attack OptInBig? (Score:2)
So, how long have you been working for JBoss now?
Is OptInRealBig a victom of spam? (Score:3, Interesting)
However I've receaved spam from this guy and I know I never opted in.
So the question is how come Scott believes his actions are lagit?
Answer:
I do get a lot of "Welcome" messages from marketting lists. Most of them say something like "Please click on the link below to conferm". Eather spammers are being creative and trying to trick me into opting in to stuff I don't have any intrest in or someone spammed my e-mail address to them.
How dose ReallyBig work? Could a jerk spammer stuff the box?
How dose Scott get a large opt in e-mail database?
It would make sense that he would have some program set up where third partys do the opt in for him. If so is there any screening for "stuffing the box"?
This presumes Scott isn't putting on a show. We can never forget that spammers are at least in part con artists. They take the PT Barnem school of marketting tactic. A sucker born every min and the real trick is to find em.
However I'm reminded of some research done a while back. Someone said that most spammers are just looking for valid e-mail addresses and don't actually sell anything.
Hence the mark isn't the spam targets but the spammers who actually try to sell stuff.
Thies people buy e-mail addresses.
And I just did conclude that this is probably where Scott got his marketting list.
In short...
Scott is this minuts sucker
Or the modern PT Barnum.
Sadly you can never know for sure.
Re:Is OptInRealBig a victom of spam? (Score:2)
Re:Is OptInRealBig a victom of spam? (Score:2)
And the number of spams I get trying to sell me address lists... I wonder if spammers get as pissed off with spam as the rest of us...
Unfortunately, SpamCop sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be happier if Spamhaus was doing this debate. They run things the right way.
Re:Unfortunately, SpamCop sucks (Score:2)
I'd be happier if Spamhaus was doing this debate. They run things the right way.
Amen. Having read a bunch of the Spamcop code, I can't imagine that its author will be able to make clear, coherent arguments against a professional smooth talker.
hmmmmmmmm, sounds like a good time for.... (Score:2)
Spamcop is least of Richter's worries (Score:2)
Maybe they're thinking he'll be assasinated. (Score:2)
Bad idea (Score:2)
It's a bad idea because Julian has nothing to gain, Richter has nothing to lose.
FBI claims to be "investigating spam" (Score:3, Interesting)
The "Notable early accomplishments" read very strangely. They seem to have been drafted for maximum deniability. "Developed ten primary subject packets developed and for referral to Law Enforcement" "We are already planning meetings to ensure that this initiative is on track, and to further define the scope and packaging of this activity are being planned." Doesn't sound like a major roundup of criminals is in the works.
The FBI doesn't actually produce many arrests per hour expended. The FBI's Baltimore-based child porno operation produces about 1.6 arrests per agent year. They have 200 agents on that operation, or about 2% of their agent staff. (The FBI isn't that big. There are only about 12,000 agents. The NYPD is four times as large.) So to shut down 100 spammers per year, they'd probably have to devote about 75 agents to the operation, which is a big bite for them.
Only a handful spammers (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a notable drop in reports on 28 april 2004. The exact day two US-spammers were arrested. (see eweek.com [eweek.com])
A handful other spammers in jail, and the spam-rate will drop to below 5% of todays volume.
Some spammer urls (Score:2, Informative)
Chinese spammer [netvigator.com]
And yet another one [china-pub.com]
home loan spammer [ezwayhomeloan.com]
junk health spammer [healthaction.biz]
Opportunity... (Score:3, Interesting)
Brave man! Not to mention, reckless...
Now that we know where Scott Richter's going to be (Score:3, Funny)
1. Go to your local supermarket
2. Buy a can or two of SPAM or a cheaper generic substitute
3. Conceal the can in a bag or coat
4. Attend the conference and bring a digital camera with you.
5. Get a nice seat closer to the front
6. Wait until Richter is comfortable enough to let his guard down
7. Open can of spam and place the contents in your hand
8. Launch contents in your hand at Richter
9. Repeat steps 7 and 8 until you're out of SPAM
10. Take a picture or Richter covered with spam w/ a digital camera
11. Post it on
Oh yeah...
12. ????
13. Profit!!!
You might need to do some more prep work as far as hurling SPAM at targets. Get a friend to help you, organize SPAM throwing practice sessions. Get all the participants to come with you to the debate.
Alternative plan
1. Go to your local sports store
2. Buy a baseball bat.
3. You know the rest...
Re:Seen this before? (Score:2)
Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
If the spammers were civil and provided a way to honestly opt-out, I don't think there'd be much debate. As it is, "opt-out" options are used to verify legitimate mail addresses to which more spam is sent.
The essence of fairness is respect. If spammers were to respect the wishes of email participants, these drastic blacklist measures would not be necessary.
Just as a person may not be allowed to speak at a public forum with no curtailment of free speech, so an ISP may filter spam with no curtailment of free speech. Plus, as SpamCop merely provides a service (the identification of spam black-hole lists), they are not themselves curtailing free speech. If I (as an individual) decide to pre-filter my email by using SpamCop, I have also not curtailed the free speech rights of spammers; I have merely invoked my right to not listen.
If SpamCop is inhibited in any way by first amendment arguments, justice has been subverted. Since SpamCop itself is opt-in, they are providing more free speech than the spammers themselves.
Granted, I am not a lawyer, one of the many things of which I am glad. (I don't see how many lawyers sleep at night, but then again, I fret when I realize I only left a 15% tip instead of a 20% tip.)
Re:Free Speech (Score:2)
Spam needs to be regulated.
On an interesting side note in Asia they have a system whereby cabbies are paid to take you to stores where you pretend to be interested in purchasing something then decide at the last minute not to. They get paid about $2 a head.
Which isn't as much as most people's time is worth.
Advertising on the internet is the first chance for people to say, my income is $120 a day pay me $13 and I'll look at an hou
Re:Free Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Email and SMS spam and phone calls are just plain annoying - SMS spam more so because it is not uncommon for me to get SMS spam in the early hours of the morning and often the senders seem to have bugs in their systems that causes it to repeatedly send the same message to me over and over. A couple of months ago a SMS spammer decided to send the same message to me ev
Re:funny guy (Score:2)
This debate is going to be akin to Richter bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Re:hmm (Score:2)
Only after a long, debilitating, and extremely painful illness, though.
Re:Pay Per View (Score:2)
You do bring about an interesting point about the quality of free entertainment breaking down the social structure of society
Re:Spamcop is almost worse then the spammers... (Score:3, Insightful)
Since you only have the user's email address you have no way of contacting them, even to tell them that you can't contact them because of SpamCop!
So you contact SpamCop and they take this high-handed approach and won't help you. You contact the ISP, but they don't do anything either