Hi guys and gals. I've got a dilemma here and I'm not sure how to proceed.
The owner of a domain that I host has used a third-party source to send posts to 4 different newsgroups advertising his site.
The subject line in each of the posts to each of the newsgroups were different, and while the post wasn't *completely* off-topic (it did have some mention of the subject of the newsgroup), it was obviously sent just to drive traffic to this guy's site.
To be more specific; this is a humor writer, who in his latest piece mentioned the tv shows Ally McBeal, Sienfeld, and Law & Order. Just dumb one-liners about the shows. He sent the piece in its entirety to newsgroups about the above shows. They didn't ask for it, but then again they're newsgroups regarding those shows. He changed the subject line for each of the newsgroups, so it was not *completely* cross-posting (for example the subject sent to the ally-mcbeal list said something like 'a mention of ally mcbeal' while the one to the seinfeld list said 'watching too much tv') but then again, it was the same exact post sent to all lists.

He did *not* send this mail through my server. At no time at all did it relay through his domain or my server.
He used a third-party source to send the posts.

Now I've got someone from the newsgroups breathing down my neck to terminate his web hosting account. They've also sent this complaint to my NOC, since I host the domain and the NOC hosts my dedicated server.

I am not sure if I truly can terminate this user's account. I hate spam as much as the next guy (and I get TONS of it every day) - but does merely mentioning his website in a post to multiple newsgroups, each post having a different subject (meaning he sent them individually, not bulk), whereas a user complained justify me terminating this account?

He didn't relay it through me, so I don't think that I have any valid ground to stand on. Not sure? Help?!?

:)
Any advice would be tremendously appreciated.

Raven

It's a tricky situation. From one view, he has not broken your rules since he has used a 3rd party to spam. But from another point of view, he's spamming a site hosted on your server and you're getting the shi*t for it. I guess you should look at your rules, do they say "he's not allowed to use his account to spam" or does it say "he's not allowed to spam his site"?

We've had to modify our spam-policy to account for users who go through a third-party email processor:

"Unsolicited E-mail (anti-spam policy)

Accounts caught sending unsolicited, as defined by White Lake Web/Affordable Host*, email/usenet postings, either through our servers or to promote a web site on our servers, will be terminated immediately, will not qualify for a refund and will be charged $50 per complaint filed.

*Unsolicited is defined, by White Lake Web/Affordable Host as: E-mail sent to recipients who have not asked to be contacted by you or Usenet postings (that are cross-posted to more than three newsgroups and/or posted in newsgroups where this is against that groups FAQ or charter), for the sole purpose of promoting a website or commercial business on our servers."

Feel free to borrow from this.

Either way - you should definitely give this guy a stern warning and change your TOS asap.

--Tina

That's definitely what I'm going to do - give the guy a warning and slightly modify my TOS to apply to this situation. He didn't actually break any rules, but he came awfully close.
Here's what I sent back in his defense (a recap, don't want to post the whole thing verbatim because I don't want to give my skin-of-his-teeth user a bad rep):
UCBE (commonly known as spam) is unsolicited commercial bulk email.
-This email was posted to a newsgroup, which by definition must be subscribed to and therefore can be considered an opt-in mailing list. Newsgroup users agree to receive all mail posted to the list. At no point did my client send email directly to any person on that or any other list. Also, his posts were on-topic, as the humor column that he sent does in fact mention the topics that the newsgroup dicusses.
- This email was not commercial in nature; my client was not trying to sell anything in his email. He was merely promoting his site, as is common in the majority of signature files in newsgroup postings. Also, he posted the entire column, and in no way forced users to go to his site in order to read the rest of the column.
- Each message was sent separately, with completely different subject lines. Bulk email is the simultaneous transmission of email to many sources at one time, and 'cross-posting' is the same post to many newsgroups at one time, all with the same subject line. The posts in question were neither bulk email nor 'cross-posting'.

I added some more about how the posts weren't sent through my server nor that of my NOC; and suggested that the complainant could:
1. Unsubscribe from the newsgroups if he did not wish to receive email discussing those topics
2. Filter out my clients emails if he did not wish to receive mail from my client through the newsgroup
3. Further investigate the definition of 'spam' and UCBE before accusing someone else of such a heinous act.

I mean, just because you get an email that you don't want to get, it doesn't automatically mean that it's spam. Especially if you're subscribed to a newsgroup.

But this one definitely got me on my toes and has made me see that a stricter spamming policy is in order. I thought mine was strict enough, but now I see that it's not! I'm still not sure that taking down an entire website for someone doing something like this would be entirely fair; but I suppose it's definitely a way to stop REAL spammers. If they don't have a site to promote, they won't be spamming!

My client just made a dumb mistake (he's not the brightest bulb in the box) and a few smacks upside the head should fix him up and scare him pretty good so that he doesn't do it again. At this point I'm almost thankful this happened, because it really made me evaluate my entire position on this type of situation.

I hate spammers, but now I see that someone who would wrongly accuse someone of spamming; someone who would label ANY unwanted email as a spam; can be just as bad and cause considerable amounts of damage.

Thanks everyone for the help and the perspective. I really appreciate it.

Raven

There is nothing tricky about dealing with spammers. The tricks come from their end and handling spammers is pretty easy, just nuke them!

First, though, you need to confirm that your customer did in fact spam. So many people misuse the term "spam" that it has become meaningless in describing what spam actually is. Add to that the fact that the definition of newsgroup spam (where the term originated) is a bit more complex than e-mail spam. Some people have been wrongly accused of being spammers by people who have no understanding of what spam truly is. Too many people use it as a catch all phrase for anything they don't like.

What you need to do is check with the charters of the 4 newsgroups and see if he violated any of them. Since it seems they deal with shows he writes about, he may have done nothing wrong. The fact that he hired someone to post for him is suggestive that he may be spamming, although that is not conclusive. Many people have been duped by spammers to help promote their business (or other web site) and are victims as much as the people who get spammed, even if they share the reponsibility with the spammer for hire. Ignorance is no excuse.

Next, you may want to caution your customer. Even if allowed, some posts may have a harmful effect on traffic. It is always best if a poster is an active participant rather than a post and run poster. The reception to their posts will be much better received if they are regulars in the forum.

You should review your anti-spam policies to make it clear that you will not tolerate spamming, whether or not your server is used in the process. You'll need to define what spamming is (and please do it accurately).

Responsible hosts do not tolerate spamming, regardless of their servers being involved. The problems spammers cause are something we all share and spam sympathizers and enablers are no more welcome than spammers. You could find your server and all your customers ostracized if you should be a spam haven.

With spam, you're either part of the problem of part of the solution. If you tolerate spammers on the excuse of them not directly involving your server, you make it possible for them to spam. You also make it likely your server will be blacklisted, get a bad name, be included on SpamHaus, and repel decent customers who don;t want to be cut off from the 40% of servers who subscribe to RBL, not to mention other services and individual initiatives at blocking spammers.

"Responsible hosts do not tolerate spamming, regardless of their servers being involved. "

Definitely. I'm going to add that in to my TOS, like Tina said - even if it's not sent through our server, if it's advertising a site on the server then it's subject to termination.

IF it really is spam, that is. This one wasn't.
Btw, he didn't hire someone, he posted these himself from his home email account. I've given him a warning and some suggestions on how to promote his site (like trading space with other mailing lists, because he does have his own and can do that) without getting anyone's undies in a bunch.

His reaction to this whole thing is that he's just going to stop trying to promote his column through newsgroups, the people are just too quick to accuse someone of spam without knowing what it really is, and it's just not worth it. Sounds good to me! :)

Raven

I despise spammers more than most and have educated myself on their tactics and dirty schemes. Even people, like some anti-spam server administrators ,who claim they know what they are doing, don't. They recklessly blame innocent people of being spammers. That's even happened to me, though it didn't take that to be aware that one must be absolutely certain of not blaming the innocent.

Even some anti-spammers don't define spam properly/ I communicated with one recently suggesting he revise the definition on his anti-spam web site as it was inaccurate. He defined spam as anything he didnt ask for. I pointed out that he didn't ask for my message, yet he could not define it as being spam.

Spam is not necessarily commercial in nature, as some have defined it. E-mail spam is unsolicited e-mail sent to a large group of people (bulk) with whom there is no prior business or personal relationship (and spamming them earlier does not constitute a relationship).

I've been spammed by a politician seeking reelection and by preachers spreading their faith. Neither of those messages were commercial, yet both were spam.

I sometimes make reference of one particular anti-spam site as they do a good job of defining spam and explain why some of the other definitions are inadequate. They also have the origins of spam, down to the Monty Python script, complete with sound, that gave spam its name and meaning. That site is SpamCanners and can be found at http://members.tripod.com/~SpamCanners

As Einstein said, if you can't define something, it means you don't truly understand it.

You might tell your customer that if he wishes to drive traffic to his site through newsgroups, he needs to be a regular participant in them. He will find people far more receptive than posting simply to attract visitors.