We have a client that sends out large amounts of email and we can no longer host them. Are there any dedicated server hosts that allow their clients to send out Spam or bulk email ?

:flamethr: :spam:

Originally posted by successful
We have a client that sends out large amounts of email and we can no longer host them. Are there any dedicated server hosts that allow their clients to send out Spam or bulk email ?

lol...you'll not find a host unless they've masses of disposable IP addresses ;)

Cheers,

I HATE spammers as well and I know what a pain in the *** they can be. This specific client buys lists that are permission based but he gets too many complaints for us to handle.

Permission based, isn't that where they ask you if you're willing to join a million mailling lists in some text like this:

_________
_________
_________


That may look like a bunch of underscores, but it's really a terms of service clause from a spammer's web site. It's just really small.

LOL

_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________

_________
_________
_________
_________

You have a spelling error on the second line. :eek: :D

:spam: =:sickface:

Kind regards

LOL :laugh:

Now thats funny.

Anyone planning on taking such a client, take the following steps:


1) Open MS outlook.
2) Create Rule
3) All mail from "SPAMCOP" to "TRASH"
4) all mail with "stop spamming me" to "TRASH"
5) Ask your ISP for a class c that they can dispose of.

Its just not worth the headache., just an opinion

If they are legal Opt-in then you might want to try List Builder from BCentral
http://www.bcentral.com/products/lb/default.asp?lid=295

It does all the checks and allows your customers to verify and opt-out of the list.

We used it in the past to inform our clients about updates.

Edwin

YOU cannot BUY or purchase a list of EMAILS. Thats is not opting-in. How do you know that Mary Jane Watson wanted your Viagra mailings? Doubt that she'd be interested in anything to do with Viagra.

Or Joe Nichol wanted breast enlargements? Yet you have his email address on your "purchased" list.

There is no such thing as purchasing email addressess for ::cough:: Bulk emailing ::cough:: purposes. Its a facade to try and justify their mailings. How can people sell something they dont even own?

For CORRECT mailings done legally and ethically, you must run a confirmed opt-in mailing list.

That means USER A must visit your website to sign up. YOur site emails them at their registered address a message saying that their email was registered with you (pointing out IP address that submitted the email address) and to REPLY to that email to confirm that they did INDEED want to be on your mailing list. You keep that reply in your database should they try to contest it.


You can find the correct way of Commercial Emailing that is unsolicited at:

http://www.mail-abuse.org/manage.html

If you dont run a list this way, you are prone to be called a spammer.

Dump your customer, They are not worth your headache as well as not worth having your servers blacklisted for spam support. You also may want to point them to the Mail abuse link for some education.

Originally posted by successful
I HATE spammers as well and I know what a pain in the *** they can be. This specific client buys lists that are permission based but he gets too many complaints for us to handle.


Then he is a spammer. You cannot buy email addresses that are permission based. That's spammer speak to try and justify what they are doing.

Rule #1 : Spammer always lie
Rule #2 : If a spammer says he is telling the truth, see rule #1
Rule #3: Spammers are stupid.

Originally posted by Annie-Mei
YOU cannot BUY or purchase a list of EMAILS.
Annie-Mei, I hate spammers as much as the next guy, but please produce the law that says one cannot buy or purchase a list of emails.

Thats is not opting-in. How do you know that Mary Jane Watson wanted your Viagra mailings? Doubt that she'd be interested in anything to do with Viagra.

Or Joe Nichol wanted breast enlargements? Yet you have his email address on your "purchased" list.
If the person agrees to receive mailing of a commercial nature in return for a product or service, then exactly what is wrong with this? Even if they don't agree, from what I've seen, there is very little to no legislation making sending people emails illegal. There is a difference between blitheringly annoying and illegal.

There is no such thing as purchasing email addressess for ::cough:: Bulk emailing ::cough:: purposes. Its a facade to try and justify their mailings. How can people sell something they dont even own?
They are selling information. I can buy your address, your phone number, your fax number, etc. from list companies. Email is somehow different?

For CORRECT mailings done legally and ethically, you must run a confirmed opt-in mailing list.

That means USER A must visit your website to sign up. YOur site emails them at their registered address a message saying that their email was registered with you (pointing out IP address that submitted the email address) and to REPLY to that email to confirm that they did INDEED want to be on your mailing list. You keep that reply in your database should they try to contest it.
Ethically is your opinion and no one is asking for it. Legally is another story, and as I said, there seems to be very littel legislation regarding the matter, and even less in the way of actual punishment and consequences should you not follow the nearly unenforceable legislation that is on the books or pending. Pending, of course, doesn't really apply.

You can find the correct way of Commercial Emailing that is unsolicited at:

http://www.mail-abuse.org/manage.html

If you dont run a list this way...
Ahhh, one group's ideals of how to do it (apparently the 'correct' way according to you). So much for a free internet. You will do it this way...

As I said, I'm not a fan of spam in any way. I personally can't stand it however I do understand that limitations either by private unmonitored groups or the government doesn't exactly equate to less spam in my box and less spam on the Internet in general. It doesn't mean that we should set up blocking lists on our servers, pass legislation, and follow the directives of a single group, because they say so.

Yikes! People willing to follow such absolutes is never a good thing.

Originally posted by Chicken

Annie-Mei, I hate spammers as much as the next guy, but please produce the law that says one cannot buy or purchase a list of emails.

There is no law. I didn't say spamming was illegal (actually it is in several states now). I never stated that spamming wasn't illegal.

What spamming is, with GOOD isps are violations of the CONTRACT that these morons sign up with. They agreed NOT to abuse their accts spamming. That falls under contractual law. Many major ISP's and smaller ones, include spamming as a violation of any acct. A GOOD isp nukes spammers once they are pointed out on their networks. An ISP can nuke a spammers acct for any reason if they wanted to.



If the person agrees to receive mailing of a commercial nature in return for a product or service, then exactly what is wrong with this?


Heres where the flaw of your thinking comes in when people mention "email cd's":

Email cd's are just a list of email addresses. YOU as a buyer do not know if joe@yahoooie.com signed up for a mailing list disuccsing the newest Mazda Miata or wanted the November 2001 Playboy bunny to be his best friend. But the person buying the cd may want to send him stuff about the nocturnal activities of the Couqui frogs and their mating habits, and how they could donate $$$$ to exterminate them.


ETHICAL commercial emailing is that YOU as a person who wants to do target emailing is to run your own list, and maintaing it. You want to target your STock scam to people, then you have a webform for people to sign up through. Then you confirm those sign ups so that Joe@yahoooie.com will not receive something they never asked for in the first place. So the only people interested in your stock scams are the ones YOU have confirmation for. No confirmation...its spam.

spam is about consent...not content.
You could be spamming for the Oregon Humane Society for all I care, but since I dont live in Oregon, do you really think I'd care about what they do? I dont want information about Oregon, or their Humane Society. I never asked for it. I report it as spam, even if the "content" is about the next puppy adoption drive.



Even if they don't agree, from what I've seen, there is very little to no legislation making sending people emails illegal. There is a difference between blitheringly annoying and illegal.

There is also law covering contracts that have been violated. We see an abuser, we report it to the people responsible for their network connections. They violate their contracts, they dont need their service anymore. Several states have already started enacting anti-spam laws, so yes spam is illegal...in some states.
But how would a spammer know if i am from California (where spam is illegal) or from Florida? They dont know that if they purchased a cd of emails that were only scraped from webpages, forums or newsgroups.




They are selling information. I can buy your address, your phone number, your fax number, etc. from list companies. Email is somehow different?


Ever heard of the Junk Fax law? (its illegal to send unsolicited commercial fax to people who didn't ask for it).
Ever heard of the 'do not call" list? Or the post office withholding mail that you dotn want. These are services available to Jane or John Doe for receiving communications they dont want. Once you tell a telemarketer to never call you again, by law they have to take you off their lists. If they call again, you can report them to the FTC.


Email, they force it on you, removing that "option" for you. Our only option is to block but blocking in itself is useless since spammers forge everything from headers to the "send" address.

Email also passes on the costs to the RECEIVER unlike the aformentioned (cept for Faxing which is why a law was enacted for it). With postal mail, the "spammer" must pay for postage. For Telemarketers, they have to pay for that phone call to you.

Email, it costs everyone with higher ISP connection costs, your isp having to purchase more systems to handle the amt of spam vs legit mail, hence raising your cost. Isp having to hire more people to staff to handle abuse complaints, hence raising your cost. And what about those that pay per minute while online? Japan is 10 cents a minute for a phone call, add on that for 56 dial up accts and spam can be a major problem.

There are about 240,000 business registered in America alone. If even 1% of them sends out email spam in 1 day, thats 500 pieces of mail that one would have to download. Avg size of a spam message is 10kb (but then you get those doozie 50 - 100 kb html emails). Now, imagine every business in the world sending you unsolicited email for one day. That's even a bigger problem. Now imagine all of that everyday. There is no way anyone can handle that kind of amt of emails and hope that out of the 500 at least 1 is a legit mailing from Ma and Pa, or your sister in Montana.



Ethically is your opinion and no one is asking for it. Legally is another story, and as I said, there seems to be very littel legislation regarding the matter, and even less in the way of actual punishment and consequences should you not follow the nearly unenforceable legislation that is on the books or pending.


Please look up Monsterhut (spammer) vs Paetec (ISP) = Paetec won. Please look up the pending case of T3 Direct / The Which Company (spammer) (suing) Joey McNicol (Aussie anti-spammer) = Spamemr just got kicked off of three networks in the space of two weeks. As it stands, its a civil court issue for ISP's in america. and of course nothing in civil court "makes it to the media" and the Aussie court will probably dismiss the case.

Read the newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.email and you will find a handful of those who have successfully took spammers to court and got reimbursed for the trouble.



Pending, of course, doesn't really apply.


Ahhh, one group's ideals of how to do it (apparently the 'correct' way according to you). So much for a free internet. You will do it this way...

No one is against commerce on the net. I make money on the net selling videos. I dont spam to get my customers. I do tradtional advertisements.

What people are against is being forced to see "Britney Spears" in the buff, or the next "Breast Enlargement" miracle cream, or the "Penis" enlargement being send to kids and everyone along with the "Get your international drivers license" and "Earn your diploma" along with the "Bill Gates wants to share his fortune" emails, when they never asked for it.

How is spamming not any different than having the AVON lady camped out on your doorstep?

Isn't that called "tresspassing?"
Spammers "tresspass" on networks, using open relays without any compensation to the ISP's or networks they render useles so that they can send out their 100kb message to their 20 million Cd Emails who "opted" in to get information on the next Nostradamus prediction of the end of the world.

As I said, I'm not a fan of spam in any way. I personally can't stand it however I do understand that limitations either by private unmonitored groups or the government doesn't exactly equate to less spam in my box and less spam on the Internet in general.

Again, spam is about consent not content. If I've never heard of your get rich quick scheme or that miracle drug to grow hair where the sun dont shine, I know that im definitely not intersted, otherwise I'd go out on the net and find the information for myself. If i didn't ask for it, I dont want it, so surely I dont want to see it in my emails.

It doesn't mean that we should set up blocking lists on our servers, pass legislation, and follow the directives of a single group, because they say so.

You spam, you derseve to be blocked ISP already block on their own without the confirmation of the users on networks. They dont want the extra load caused by it. They have every right to do what they want with their servers since it belongs to them. They don't belong to the govt. They dotn belong to the spammer. They belong to the ISP. If the ISP wishes to not receive email from Poland, they have the right to block all traffic from Poland from reaching their customers. That's the NICE thing about the net. I can make my own rules and I could care less if Schmirnoff has a 10% of sale in Russia.

Rule #4 : Spammers always charge back


However, we host a number of big mailing list sites (not spam).
The big problem is the queue management as lists are always getting out of date.
You really need a seperate server and set Exim only to retry twoce and not every day for a week or you end up with a mail queue the size of your hard disk.

Even if spam was illegal it would need to be illegal in the sending and receiving countries and both of those would have to have a willingness to enforce the law.

I think the best way to beat spam is to make it inneffective by filtering it out and discouraging people from responding to it.

Gordon

Originally posted by GordonH
Rule #4 : Spammers always charge back


However, we host a number of big mailing list sites (not spam).
The big problem is the queue management as lists are always getting out of date.
You really need a seperate server and set Exim only to retry twoce and not every day for a week or you end up with a mail queue the size of your hard disk.

Even if spam was illegal it would need to be illegal in the sending and receiving countries and both of those would have to have a willingness to enforce the law.

I think the best way to beat spam is to make it inneffective by filtering it out and discouraging people from responding to it.

Gordon


PacBell was a host whose mail server was rendered useless because of a spam attack. And everyone knows how big PacBell is (then again, one of the biggest supporter of spams..so kinda due justice)

Originally posted by Annie-Mei
YOU cannot BUY or purchase a list of EMAILS.
Annie-Mei, I hate spammers as much as the next guy, but please produce the law that says one cannot buy or purchase a list of emails.

Originally posted by Annie-Mei
There is no law. I didn't say spamming was illegal (actually it is in several states now). I never stated that spamming wasn't illegal.

What spamming is, with GOOD isps are violations of the CONTRACT that these morons sign up with. They agreed NOT to abuse their accts spamming. That falls under contractual law. Many major ISP's and smaller ones, include spamming as a violation of any acct. A GOOD isp nukes spammers once they are pointed out on their networks. An ISP can nuke a spammers acct for any reason if they wanted to.[/quote]

You stated clearly, "YOU cannot BUY or purchase a list of EMAILS." The question has nothing to do with 'spamming' and whether spamming is illegal or not. The question is about buying a list of email addresses. Your response above was OT.


There is no such thing as purchasing email addressess for ::cough:: Bulk emailing ::cough:: purposes. Its a facade to try and justify their mailings. How can people sell something they dont even own?
They are selling information. I can buy your address, your phone number, your fax number, etc. from list companies. Email is somehow different?
Originally posted by Annie-Mei Ever heard of the Junk Fax law? (its illegal to send unsolicited commercial fax to people who didn't ask for it).
Ever heard of the 'do not call" list? Or the post office withholding mail that you dotn want. These are services available to Jane or John Doe for receiving communications they dont want. Once you tell a telemarketer to never call you again, by law they have to take you off their lists. If they call again, you can report them to the FTC.

I've heard of the Junk Fax law, was in the fax industry for a few years. People sell this information all the time. They sell things they 'do not own' (your question above). I'm also aware of the 'do not call list' however this list has nothing to do with my being able to buy your number (from a place that 'does nto own it') and call it for commercial purposes.

I am also aware of various lawsuits against spammers, etc.

Originally posted by Annie-Mei
How is spamming not any different than having the AVON lady camped out on your doorstep?
I don't really think a repply to this one is needed. Quite different. (???) Anywhooooo...

Originally posted by Chicken
You stated clearly, "YOU cannot BUY or purchase a list of EMAILS." The question has nothing to do with 'spamming' and whether spamming is illegal or not. The question is about buying a list of email addresses. Your response above was OT.

You cannot buy or purchase email lists and claim they opted-in to receive their spam. Sorry, it was not put into correct context and I didn't know what you were referring to. A cd full of email addresses is just that . A cd full of email addresses. None of which can be determined that they agreed to receive email for information on the next Nasa space mission or Miss July's post on a nude Britney Spears site. That is not opt-in. Thats just plain spamming.

Opt-in means the person who has that email address chose to get mailings about the next Viagra phenonemon or to see "hot sexy lesbians" get it on with goats. And to confirm that they wanted it, they need to have gone through what is known as Double Opt-in. They sign up, they get an email stating that they DID sign up and if they DO want the mailings, they reply to that email and the system automatically adds their email to a list. That verification email is then stored in a database for future refernece. That verification email does not mean your partner can sell my email address off to another list and say that I said yes to accept their mailings as well. EAch mailing list must do proper confirmation other wise its abuse.



I've heard of the Junk Fax law, was in the fax industry for a few years. People sell this information all the time. They sell things they 'do not own' (your question above). I'm also aware of the 'do not call list' however this list has nothing to do with my being able to buy your number (from a place that 'does nto own it') and call it for commercial purposes.

Unlike Phone numbers and addresses, WE do not own these. ITs owned by the phone company. WE do not own our house address, the US Postal system does. They are the ones who assign us the numbers so we can get our mail. They with the Federal Govt and your local state govt also has the power to reassign addresess as well, and you can't complain about it. If they wish to rename the street you live on, that's their right to do so (Unless public outcry deters it).

You can go on directory assitance and find the information about anyone anywhere. Go online and get those information as well. This is publicly available.

Email is not a public utility and was never deemed as such. Its private communication between individuals and companies on the net. ITs was never deemed as a "main" source of communication, so its not subjected to the same laws as that govern Phone or Fax. In fact anyone relying on Email for their sole contact is treading on water to stay afloat. ISP are private companies, and they dont have to allow traffic or email from anyone and they dont have to give a reason for it.

There is no contract that At&T and Verizon to communicate with each other. Att can block all trafic from Verzion internet users if they wanted to. The fact they choose to keep it open as much as possible is just share the networks. ATT at any time can cut access from Verizon for any reason it deems necessary to cut out the abuse.


Spammers abuse the system. There is not even on spammer that ever done anything without resorting to abuse. The inundate mail servers with messages that only 1% will probably will want to read. What about 99% of those that were inconvenienced by the mailings? Or take up space in their small accts.

My isp only gives a 5 meg acct for emails. Ever had what they call a Joe Job? That's where a spammer, who does'nt give a rat about the guy they hurt, puts in the FROM : address some stupid name they pick out of thin air. Well, sometimes that name is a REAL person and its a REAL address. There has been instances where bounce messages from a spam run will flood a REAL persons email box and what are they supposed to about it? They can't exacly ignore the bounces. Then what happens when people start replying to those messages because they were spammed.


I've had a Joe Job done on one of my old ISP accts. The bounced messages numbered in the thousands. I had to call my ISP to go into my email acct to get rid of the bouncing messages. They received over 5000 pieces of email that was for a Win A Free Vacation scam that was for a company based in Florida. Now HOW the hell would someone in Florida send email with the FORGED from address of HAWAII (can't figure out that aloha.com is based in HAWAII?)? It makes sense right? While MY acct was "stuck" with crap of bounces, the REPLIES to these emails started to come in complaining about "STOP SENDING ME THIS SPAM" and UNsubscribe requests. I had to ABANDON that email address because not more than a week later, another deluge of spam bounces came in. It was a nightmare. My ISP just had to dev/null any email that was coming into my address. And that meant also losing a lot of legit email as well.

You know how much time was wasted by my ISP to clear the mail queue for me, not including all the others who may have been affected by it. The time I had to waste to let everyone I knew on my contact sheet that my new email address would be different? Yup that's what spammers do; all in the name of "Free-enterprise".

They steal the resources of others (shifting the cost of their advertisements to those who receive them; use networks that dont belong to them; cause bandwidth problems) in order to send their commercial (or non-commercial) emails.

Im sure you would like to have someone post a lemonade stand in your front yard and make money there right? Its the same thing.

People still pay per minute in order to access the internet. Imagine my situation above for a person who has to pay for every minute they are online. Trying to download 5000 messages?

[b]
I am also aware of various lawsuits against spammers, etc.


I don't really think a repply to this one is needed. Quite different. (???) Anywhooooo...


It does apply. The one that is going on in Austrailia is a very significant one. A spamming company, KNOWn for spamming, is suing a person who complained about their spam because they publicly stated that the company iS spamming. They say they dont spam. Well, proof has been found all over the net that THEY DO spam. They tried to SUE the anti-spammer for IP's that didn't even belong to them (yup they STOLE ip addresses in order to spam). Do we see a trend here?

Spammers steal.


Im for one for advertising through Email. Its a new way to get your products to sell. I dont want to however be subjected to emails I did not ask for. If i wanted to get a college degree, I surely wouldn't go online for it or buy one. If i want a drivers license, I'd go to the local dmv and get one.

If I wanted to go on vacation, I'd go to my local travel agent for the best prices, or shop online at travel sites.


Here's a nice little look into what spamming can do in one day:

http://www.clifto.com/8345.html

"You cannot buy or purchase email lists and claim they opted-in to receive their spam."

my point is that say, for example, DomainZero, which I have used, had a TOS which gave away free domain names (they did) in exchange for you agreeing to receive advertising (which was the case). Now, I don't remember how their TOS was worded, but it doesn't matter, I'm not talking about one specific company anyway. The terms could be that, "You agree that xyzCompany can share your information with 3rd parties" and if you sign up, there you have it. Your info *could* be sold on a disc, etc.

Now, I think we're on the same side here, I'm just pointing out that your basing some things on assumptions and I try to never make assumptions about things such as this. At face value, it is entirely possible to buy a list like this.

Are the many 'Buy this CD of 9 million email addresses' CD's that I get spammed about like this? Most likely not. Even worse, I know my address is on that damn CD!!! :bawling:

Bastages... anyhow, spammers don't care about emailing only to a opt-in list. You do. They don't care about the 'right way' to do it (according to you or some site). You do. They don't care if you and your 12 year old doughter get an email everyday about viagra or goat sex, or whatever. You do.

What we have here, are tow groups of people with completely different views on what is what, how it should be, and what they can and should do. Who is 'right' ? I don't mean, who is annoyed and who is the annoyer, who is right?

Legislation is wonderful, except when it is ineffective (read: war on drugs), costs tons of money and creates red tape and hassle (read: you're better off trying to get a liquor license in New Hampshire), or when it limits your rights (while being ineffective towards the problem and costing you money and hassle).

About owning things, ok, we don't own our address, nor do we own our phone number. We also don't own our email address, nor our domains. The point that the government owns some things and private companies owns other things is moot IMHO, however if there's some distinction that makes this relevant, I'm willing to hear it.

The rest trials off into blocking spammers and spammers wasting resources of ISP again, which I'm aware of. Joe Jobs, and bouced emails, etc. Not sure what relevance that has. Spammers suck, we all know it, I don't think anyone's arguing that. Lemonade stand yadda yadda...

You tend to skip over things and respond to the wrong thing. You said, "How is spamming not any different than having the AVON lady camped out on your doorstep?" and I responded, "I don't really think a repply to this one is needed. Quite different. (???) Anywhooooo..." - ('repply' was supposed to be reply). But below you skipped over the above context and went on about lawsuits which isn't what, "I don't really think a reply to this one is needed" was referring to.

The spaming link is theoretical. They start by using 60% of the 25,400,000 business in the United States and saying that they'll spam 2 times a week each. Whatever. Then they arbitrarily cut down the numbers and end up with a number that is meaningless. It is an exercise in futility.

I don't like spammers, really. However, I am conservative in that I don't rush to support laws that restrict everyone, and I don't say my way is right, unless it is. ;)

Those kidns of agreements are not for emails sold on CD's. They never have. What they do is share a database with their partners. When you sign up you agreed to that you information will be shared with their partners. I alwasy look over a privacy policy of a site before giving any information to them. If I know that they will be sharing my email address with their partners, then I give them an email address that I use for mailings.

The fact remains is that I agreed to receive these mailings. The ONLY have on of my email addresses (a free email addy) Why would I get email at my other email addresses that have never signed up for anything.

My contact email address on my website is just that, for people to contact me pertaining to my site, their questions about my site, or problems they have with my site. It specifically states that on my site that I will only address comments or suggestions about my site at that email address. Its not used for any other purpose, cept to receive email from my visitors or members of my site.

Yet I get spammed at it for Vacations (which I dont need), Adult websites, and scams. How did my email address on my website get onto these lists? I never signed up for them. Easy, a spammer used spamware that scrape email addresses from websites and they put these email addresses on a cd and sell them. That's is not opt-in.


I have only used one email address for any "signing" up that I do. Partner sites that do not state that they are sending me email because I signed up with so-and-so site are reported as spam. If they are not listed on the so-and-so site I signed up for, or dont state in their emails that they are partners with so-and-so site, then they dont have my agreement to be sent those emails. Partner sites have been known to be shut - down because they ended up spamming people without the valid agreement in their hands.

The people spamming must provide proof that they have my permission to send emails. If they are partners with another site, then they need to get that proof from that site I signed up with. Im not going to do their homework for them. They want to advertise, they need to do it as correctly and ethically as possible.


Every partner site email I've received explicitly state where they got my email address from (ie Amazon.com partners have it in their messages saying that I am reveiving their email because of my agreement to receive such from Amazon.com) I've never reported these emails as spam because when I signed up for Amazon.com I agreed to receive those emails from their partner sites.

If those "partner" sites then give my email address to their partner sites, then it becomes and issue of spam. I didn't agree to THEIR privacy policy. I only agreed to Amazon's privacy policy.

Those "millions" cd's are of email addresses scraped from Websites (I even get spammed at my Abuse@ address), newsgroup postings, or confirmed email addresses from those that dont know any better than to respond to unsubscribe requests. And for legit companies, they dont share their email addresses with partner sites via a "millions" cd.


At face value, it is entirely possible to buy a list like this.

We are on the same side, but I base my assumptions on the abuse@ and the contact email address I have for my website. With 200 emails a day, and 60% of it is spam, Im only a small example of what larger Isp's handle everyday.



Are the many 'Buy this CD of 9 million email addresses' CD's that I get spammed about like this? Most likely not. Even worse, I know my address is on that damn CD!!! :bawling:

YES every one of those spams selling a millions cd is of addresses stolen from the examples illustrated above. None of them are legit. Many are lists of dictionary attacks on servers that have proven to weed out bad emails from the "hey this one worked" emails. No millions cd is legit. THE FTC is now cracking down them (just recently announced).

I know that my contact email is on one of those cd's. I know that my free email address that I use for mailings is on one of those cd's because of a dictionary attack on Hotmail addresses. If an email address doesn't give a bounce, then the spammer has a "live" address to add to his/her list.

My old email from aloha.com is probably on about 10,000 of those cd's now.


They don't care about the 'right way' to do it (according to you or some site). You do. They don't care if you and your 12 year old doughter get an email everyday about viagra or goat sex, or whatever. You do.

Which is why we need to hold them responsible. I love the idea that many ISP's are now imposing a clean=up charge for who ever violates their TOS/AUP because of spamming.
Last I looked, its against the law in the US to give, or show Adult related material to minors. How does that spammer know that Jello-stars@yahooied.com is not a 12 year old or a 65 year old? They dont. Wish the law would hurry up and address this.


What we have here, are tow groups of people with completely different views on what is what, how it should be, and what they can and should do. Who is 'right' ? I don't mean, who is annoyed and who is the annoyer, who is right?

Whoever is in control of the Isp's mailserver is "always" right.


Legislation is wonderful, except when it is ineffective (read: war on drugs), costs tons of money and creates red tape and hassle (read: you're better off trying to get a liquor license in New Hampshire), or when it limits your rights (while being ineffective towards the problem and costing you money and hassle).


Legislation will work once those political bastards finally realizes the magnitude of the problem. In fact many people are now forwading their spam emails to their state representatives and senators to try and start something to curb it. 20 states now have laws about spamming. That's up from 5 from last year alone. Many more will be jumping on the bandwagon and the DMA (notorious spammers) will have no one to support their cause.

Its like the Big Tobacco companies. They have the money to influence the politicians. Its whoever holds th purse, unfortunately. Same with oil companies. Why isn't there more stricter laws about automobiles and their consumption of fossil fuel, polluting the earth. WE have the technology NOW to make cars rely on fossil fuel less now, but there are no laws concerning this. Why? Oil companies have deep pockets. Advertisers have deeper pockets than the average Joe Schmoe. AS the laws get tighter, the more difficult it will be. It just takes time.

Legislation is slwo to catch up, but it will. It just takes the efforts of those who just hit delete, to learn how to complain about it.


About owning things, ok, we don't own our address, nor do we own our phone number. We also don't own our email address, nor our domains. The point that the government owns some things and private companies owns other things is moot IMHO, however if there's some distinction that makes this relevant, I'm willing to hear it.

Email has already been deemed by the govt that it isn't a source of official communication. That means, we shouldn't rely on it even 10% of the time for anything. The only communication protected by our government is the Mail and the Phone. That's it.

We do own our own domains. You just dont own the IP address assigned to it. I can easily move my domain from one host to another, but it will alwasy belong to me. I own my own mailserver, so the emails associated with my domain as received by my mailserver belong to me. And if people send me messages for something that I didn't want, I have every right to complain. The only thing that will be affected is if the webhost or isp im with decides to filter, which I probably wont disagree to.


Spammers suck, we all know it, I don't think anyone's arguing that. Lemonade stand yadda yadda...

Some people have a hard time tryng to understand why spammers suck. So we try to associate them with other situations that are the same. Spammers steal to do what they want. They dont care if they cause a server to crash through their faul. They dont care if the 10000 of customers can't access the net through their Isp beause they crashed the system. They dont care how much manpower it takes by ISP's to hire more people to handle the abuse. They dont care that the cost of ISP subscriptions go up because of them. They dont care that Isp's have to buy more servers just so they can handle the spam.

Maybe its a good thing they spam. As ISP prices goes up, they wont be able to afford those charges anymore and will have to find another way to spam.


But below you skipped over the above context and went on about lawsuits which isn't what, "I don't really think a reply to this one is needed" was referring to.

Sorry, the quote didn't include the original text so I didn't see what you were referring to.




Then they arbitrarily cut down the numbers and end up with a number that is meaningless. It is an exercise in futility.

That is where spam will end up if we let it continue, not educate people about reporting it instead of just hitting delete. Its theoretical, but even only a couple of 1000 spammers are already causing problems. ONE spammer crashed pacbell servers. It only takes one.

But spammers dont mind forcing their opinions on you without you being able to say stop.
They force emails on you, take up your HD space for legit emails or subject you to their commrecial emails without your agreement. Yet, when you want to compalin about them, they are the first to whine about it.

Again, if can't do the time, dont do the crime.

was all this arguing really worth it now?

Hey... don't go getting Spammers blacklisted or that.. you will be sued... you think I am joking?

http://t3-v-mcnicol.org/
http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/
http://winchester.ii.net/
http://australianit.news.com.au/article2/0,7237,4467568%5E15301%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html

Two ISPs have kicked them off their networks (since the law suit).. WolrdCom /uunet are yet to kick T3 off their network.

Originally posted by Warp
Hey... don't go getting Spammers blacklisted or that.. you will be sued... you think I am joking?

http://t3-v-mcnicol.org/
http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/
http://winchester.ii.net/
http://australianit.news.com.au/article2/0,7237,4467568%5E15301%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html

Two ISPs have kicked them off their networks (since the law suit).. WolrdCom /uunet are yet to kick T3 off their network.

Sure, but they go ahead and shoot themselves in the foot by continuing to spam AFTER they filed a lawsuit.

problem is Joe McNicol wasn't the FIRST one to complain about them spamming. Their first complaint happened in January 2002. Joe posted his complaint on his website in May. Why isn't guy who complained about it back in January being sued?

We do own our own domains.

Not quite.

Guess you've never been involved a domain name dispute.

Originally posted by Hey It's Me


Not quite.

Guess you've never been involved a domain name dispute.


Was actually.

If you mean coporate bullying like http://www.nissan.com (which I hope Nissan Motor Company loses and has to pay the GUY 10,000,000 dollars), I dont call that dispute. I call it harassment