homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.144.54
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Webmaster General
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: phranque

Webmaster General Forum

    
Microsoft Sues Webhosting Company over Spam
Brett_Tabke




msg:376678
 3:34 pm on Sep 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

[washingtonpost.com...]

[reuters.co.uk...]

Aaron Kornblum, an attorney for Microsoft, said the Web hosting company, which offers space on computers for serving Web pages and sending e-mail, based its operations in China so the sites would not be shut down.

"This is the first action against a Web host catering to spammers," Kornblum said, "they're providing a safe place for spammers to drive customers to."


 

Lord Majestic




msg:376679
 3:49 pm on Sep 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Well, as much as I hate spammers I hope they lose as after that ISPs will get sued right and left for everything (most likely alleged "copyright infringement").

Put big bounty on top spammers and tempt their "friends" to turn them in and serve as witness in court of law.

diamondgrl




msg:376680
 4:02 pm on Sep 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Good for them. Legit ISPs have nothing to fear from this.

Lord Majestic




msg:376681
 4:04 pm on Sep 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Legit ISPs have nothing to fear from this.

They do because if ISPs become responsible for what their clients do then this would open gates of hell for frivolous lawsuits by RIAA etc.

notsosmart




msg:376682
 4:38 pm on Sep 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

They do because if ISPs become responsible for what their clients do then this would open gates of hell for frivolous lawsuits by RIAA etc.

Agreed. As much as I'd like to see spammers drawn and quartered, if Mister Softee wins this case, unscrupulous idiots will use the case as precedent to go after other perceived offenders.

CritterNYC




msg:376683
 4:47 pm on Sep 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Agreed. As much as I'd like to see spammers drawn and quartered, if Mister Softee wins this case, unscrupulous idiots will use the case as precedent to go after other perceived offenders.

I'm not so sure. What we have here is a case of an ISP knowingly and willingly helping other companies break US law.

StupidScript




msg:376684
 4:57 pm on Sep 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

I believe it is a hosting company, not an ISP.

It's the difference between going after a "house of ill repute" or going after the state that maintains the road that leads to that house.

The house should fall, while the road remains open.

notsosmart




msg:376685
 5:30 pm on Sep 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

I'm not so sure. What we have here is a case of an ISP knowingly and willingly helping other companies break US law.

Hope you're right. The problem with precedent though, is that once it's set, especially by a high court, it is very easy for a lawyer to twist its meaning and use it for unintended purposes.

US criminal, as well as civil law case history is chock full of examples of such malfeasance.

HyperGeek




msg:376686
 5:35 pm on Sep 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Not to mention the current issues about MS and their spamming of the search engines.

It may not be e-mail spam, but it's spam nonetheless and equally detrimental to the quality of the Internet.

chicagohh




msg:376687
 7:42 pm on Sep 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

but it's spam nonetheless and equally detrimental to the quality of the Internet.

Hardly. If it was *detrimental* to any search engine or the internet (hyperbole?) they could easily hand edit the site. Search engines went and indexed the MS site - MS did not inject themselves into the index.

Marcia




msg:376688
 10:43 am on Sep 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

There is a WORLD of difference between email spam and anything at all that's at search engines. One has nothing to do with the other. We ourselves *go* to the search engines by our own free choice and do queries; nobody forces search engines on us against our will. They don't come to us and invade our computers with tons of unwanted trash that loads down and freezes up our email programs if we miss dumping the garbage a little too long.

Why mingle the two issues, change the subject and cause confusion when they're even more different than apples and oranges?

PCInk




msg:376689
 11:24 am on Sep 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Gillespie was not immediately available for comment and e-mails sent to his company's site were not immediately answered.

What? Give him a chance - he has spam to delete before he reads your message - could be days before he gets to it!

Aaron Kornblum, an attorney for Microsoft, said the Web hosting company, which offers space on computers for serving Web pages and sending e-mail, based its operations in China so the sites would not be shut down.

Breaking US law in China? Well I don't want to disappoint any US people here but US law only applies to the US (and countries which have agreed to some of their laws). China does not support any US laws. If the owner is in the US, he may get prosecuted, but the servers could possibly remain standing.

Leosghost




msg:376690
 11:39 am on Sep 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

95% of the spam I get ( to an ostensibly French person living in France and supposedly only speaking/understanding French ..via my French ISP's) comes at me out of Florida ..usually for ( apart from "enlargement stuff" ) products which will only be shipped inside the USA ( always written in the small print just above the (smile) "unsubscribe"(/smile) links ..

I don't filter it ..I delete them while I wake up with my first coffee of the day ... gentle on emerging braincells ;)

maybe microsoft should look a little closer to home?

..and maybe those using spam mail should ask themselves where their spam is really going ..as in ROI ...

ps. nothing against Floridians ..some of the coolest people on these boards are Floridians ( and Chinese etc etc ) ..

kaled




msg:376691
 6:00 pm on Sep 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

If the big guns (or law enforcement agencies) want to kill spam, they should chase the clients. If sending spam is illegal, then the clients are just as guilty as the spammers.

Somehow, I think people would be less likely to pay for spam advertising if there was a risk they would be sent to jail or bankrupted.

Kaled.

DaveN




msg:376692
 11:14 am on Sep 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

If the big guns (or law enforcement agencies) want to kill spam, they should chase the clients. If sending spam is illegal, then the clients are just as guilty as the spammers....

so if i wanted to send mu competitors to jail i just spam a couple of million email adys and the big guns do the rest .....cool

and on the subject of spam "SE spam" V "UCE spam"

SE spam if I build a page and host it on the net somewhere, then link to it from another site.... shortly after the SE's find that link and come to the site, then THEY decide where it will be shown in their results, then the average joe goes to those se's (THEIR CHOICE!) look at the results then they decide which site to visit

UCE spam the average joe wakes up one morning, decides to check his email, and someone has filled it with UNWANTED emails... he had no choice and if he is on a dialup it costing him money as well.

if somebody wants to enlarge their parts and they search for that then they are getting what they want from the SE's whether it's Spam or Not, when i collect me email in the morning and i get over 150 enlarge your bits emails I don't want to enlarge my bits i did not search or ask these guys to send these emails...but i have no choice i still have to download their ad's....

DaveN

kaled




msg:376693
 1:43 pm on Sep 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

so if i wanted to send mu competitors to jail i just spam a couple of million email adys and the big guns do the rest .....cool

There is an adage in law enforcement that basically says "follow the money".

I don't know what sort of sums of money are involved and whether brown envelopes are used but a few clients (half a dozen) seem to fund 90% of the spam I see. Going after the clients is far easier than going after the spammers - you know where the clients are.

Most clients and their advertising agencies will be required by law to submit detailed accounts for revenue purposes. Cutting the flow of money should be far easier than technical solutions.

Kaled.

DaveN




msg:376694
 1:59 pm on Sep 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

if you sent 10,000 visitors a day to anyone for no profit where's the money trail? but at the target!

kaled




msg:376695
 4:49 pm on Sep 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Don't look at spam profits, look at spam costs.

If I want someone to send out 10 million spam adverts, I've got to get the money to them some how. The police, etc. can very easily determine who I am from the spam (in most cases) therefore they can take whatever means are necessary to trace my outgoings. Once they have proof that I've paid to have spam sent, they can lock me up for 5 seconds for every spam mail sent.

This may not be child's play, but it is possible.

One high-profile court case would see spam cut dramatically.

Kaled.

Max_K




msg:376696
 5:14 pm on Sep 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

Just a friendly reminder to those of you receiving SPAM from the US or while residing in the US: Forward all unsolicited commercial email to the FTC as-is at spam@uce.gov. Alternatively, fill-out their consumer complaint form located at the FTC's website.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Webmaster General
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved