homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.20.63.27
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 & physics

Webmaster General Forum

This 82 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 82 ( 1 [2] 3 > >     
Spam Fighter Hit With $11.7 Million Judgment
engine




msg:3084643
 5:53 pm on Sep 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

The nonprofit group behind a popular blacklist used to block spam has been hit with a multimillion-dollar judgment, but the order may not be enforceable.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ordered Wednesday that Spamhaus must pay $11,715,000 in damages to e360insight and its chief, David Linhardt, who sued the U.K.-based organization earlier this year over blacklisting.

The court also barred Spamhaus from causing any e-mail sent by e360insight or Linhardt to be "blocked, delayed, altered, or interrupted in anyway" and ordered Spamhaus to publish an apology stating that Linhardt and his company are not spammers, according to a copy of the order.

Spam Fighter Hit With $11.7 Million Judgment [news.com.com]

 

Lexur




msg:3085156
 5:41 am on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

...the case had merit(this as it was) and there was no defense...

Maybe the whole case is just a big and free press release. The spammer's lawyers saw that the UK based non-profit organization will not be in court to appeal.

This way, the spammer has a cheap public document, won in a court, where they're declared officially non-spammers to show in the future.

[edited by: Lexur at 5:42 am (utc) on Sep. 16, 2006]

koan




msg:3085170
 6:07 am on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

It's easy to say then don't send email, but that is almost impossible for any growing company. And just so we are all on the same page, you should all know UNSOLICITED EMAIL is not SPAM, UNTARGETED EMAIL is SPAM.

The standard definition of spam is "unsolicited bulk email". If a user hasn't opted-in, by subscribing himself (ideally with confirmation by email, or else, anyone could add other people's email addresses and the mailing list would be corrupted), it is unsolicited. Now, the US law only forbids a certain sub-groups of spam, which use false headers, etc. But if it's unsolicited and sent to a large group, it's spam, and if you send spam, people are allowed to protect themselves from you, by blocking your mailing IP address and by reporting you to your host for doing something against their Terms of Service (respectable hosting companies disallow spam using that standard definition). And to call you a spammer, which, I hope, you aren't. It's not defamation when it's true.

vincevincevince




msg:3085187
 6:32 am on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Why is it legal to hit someone with a law suit but not with a fist? This suit is assult and violent battery of someone working hard to do good, and yet the police are powerless to bring charges.

If Spamhaus doesn't have the resources to verify that everyone one the list deserves to be there then how about donating to them or asking your elected representatives to look into arranging financial support for their efforts. Why go to court about this?

mr_lumpy




msg:3085190
 6:37 am on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

To say "it's just a list" is ridiculous.

Intent is the key.

If you accidentally kill someone (falling into them, holding a knife) you won't go to jail (oftentimes). But if you plan to kill someone, and stab them to death, you will go to jail (oftentimes). Both actions are the same, the intent is different.

If the purpose of the Spamblock list is to provide a "guide" to potentially blocking spam, they may be able to skirt legal responsibility for the use of their list. But if the Spamblock list is for use in automated systems, where a reasonable person may assume that its usage would block send/receipt of emails on the list, the intent IS to block email.

Lawsuits against gun shops and the like proceed for the same reason: was diligence executed? If not, you can be liable. Sell a gun to a crazy person who says "that wife of mine is going to get it today - bang bang!", and you're liable. The same rule applies to Spamblock lists that aren't double checked. Block a legitimate email, with the intent to automate email blocking, and you're liable.

Pibs




msg:3085251
 9:25 am on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

In the UK is is considered a VERY serious crime to interrupt, delay or block the Royal Mail (poncy title, just means post office stuff).

In fact off the top of my head I believe this is one of the very few crimes that still *technically* carries the death penalty. Of course we can sneer at email and say it's "not proper post" but that is somewhat debatable.

Consider for a moment the customer in this - you wish to build your business, don't wish to spam, so go to a company that can do an email marketing campaign without spamming. Nice. Except these "non-profit" (who cares?) people just prevented your campaign from reaching your target audience of, apparantly, opted-in people interested in your type of product.

What should such a customer do? Sue e360insight? In which case e360insight has little real choice but to pass the lawsuit onto the people who screwed the campaign.

So without knowing all the details we cannot really comment. What we need to know is:

ARE the people e360insight mail to on genuinine opt-in lists for the type of mails sent?

DO Spamhaus take reasonable steps to verify 'spam' status before adding a domain to their list?

And sorry but if they are going by IP address then they are not being reasonable at all. My own IP address changes 5 or 6 times a day, many companies operate from within a certain block of addresses and would also be hit.

If doing it by domain isn't good enough and doing it by IP address hurts the innocent, then quit doing it.

Bottom line i don't think there is any way you can add someone's company to a black-list of known spammers without at least making some effort to A. Verify and B. communicate with the company concerned to give the opportunity of proving the mail to be non-spam.

If that's too much trouble, quit calling people spammers.

I see an opportunity here for a system that logs a subscription number as well as IP of someone signing up, perhaps held by a 3rd party for future verification in event of dispute?

But if the system just relies on 'Bob reported a mail as spam, so we're going to cripple a mailing company" then sure, sue em. That is indeed libel.

P.

DamonHD




msg:3085293
 10:41 am on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hi,

1) SPAMHAUS is non-profit to show that no one intends to profit from its actions. It is being seen to be clean.

2) SPAMHAUS is actually very good about getting people off its list very quickly (and indeed automatically) when it can. Just stop sending SPAM and viruses and attacks and off you come in most cases. I've seen the automatic removal work well at a virtual office that I used that unfortunately had some malware-infected laptops visit from time to time. SPAMHAUS were extremely helpful to the admin there.

3) If you hop around between multiple IP addresses (possibly without a legit PTR record betwene them) and/or knowingly share an IP address with scumbags, juat as if your chosen return postal address is that of a crack-den or mafia boss or child molester, then what is ANY of us to do? I used to block the entire /24 block to shut out the bad neighbourhood, but AFAIK the SPAMHAUS lists restrict themselves to single IP addresses where they can.

I snapped when my daily haul of unwanted communications to my home was something like:

a) 10,000 SPAMs (up to 40,000+ on a bad-virus day)

b) several inches deep of paper mail

c) 10--20 cold calls a day on my business line(s)

d) Goodness knows how many faxes.

For what is essentially a one-person business this is unbearable. NO SELF-INTERESTED JUSTIFICATION FROM SPAMMERS/"MARKETERS" MAKES THAT MORE BEARABLE. I have taken complaints about this s**t right to the head of marketing of organisations that don't hide their identity. If you don't even announce your identity properly/honestly, guess how much I want your junk on a scale of nought to zero?

I had to stop fax all together, I can no longer use my business phone lines (I give out my business mobile to a very small group of people), and I've had to spend countless WEEKS on and off through the years upgrading and replacing and tweaking mailservers just to be able to receive ANY communication (via email) from people that I don't already know amongst the tide of FILTH that arrives every day.

If you are a marketer DO NOT blame SPAMHAUS for your troubles, blame your fellow "marketer"/SPAMmer who has forced many of us to pull up the drawbridge and feel a strong sympathy for Greta Garbo...

SPAMHAUS is keeping some of us able earn a living, and is not libelling anyone.

I repeat: no amount of self-justification by people wishing to waste my time to further their income changes this. The problem is not SPAMHAUS, it's the SPAMmers/"marketers".

Rgds

Damon

[edited by: DamonHD at 10:44 am (utc) on Sep. 16, 2006]

Edge




msg:3085384
 1:20 pm on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

I vote that anybody that has a problem with SPAMHAUS should turn off thier virus blockers and spam filters and let her rip!

Don't forget to turn off your firewall as well!

[edited by: Edge at 1:32 pm (utc) on Sep. 16, 2006]

swa66




msg:3085402
 2:04 pm on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

- If you want to compare fighting spam with messing with the postal services. Then that's fine, now let's discuss the stamps you are overdue in paying on each of you spam messages.

- If you run an supposedly "opt-in" marketing mailing list (assuming it can exist), well then your opt-in obviously isn't working properly if you are reported by the recipients as a spammer.

- If your shared hosting get's hit by a blacklisting due to your neighbor misbehaving: change provider to one that acts more proactively agaisnt their spamming customers. Ah, that might mean you can't spam either, good!

Spammer belong in jail, they are thieves. They steal electricity, bandwidth, CPU power, storage, and most importantly my time.

MisterT




msg:3085410
 2:18 pm on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>"And just where do they think a non-profit organization is going to get $12million?"

uhhh, non-profit doesn't mean you don't have money. example: where would the bill and melinda gates foundation come up with $12 million? in their couch cushions! the red cross? unicef? all these organizations have a ton of money. (not sure about this one specifically however)

oldpro




msg:3085438
 2:38 pm on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

We get constant complaints about not sending order confirmations and not replying to e-mails. When the customer calls and complains they are usually using Comcast, AOL, Earthlink or another that has way too aggressive of spam filter. It costs us money to answer the phone and explain this to customers and it costs us money from not getting return business.

How true.

I am at the point of either hiring someone just to field calls (on our toll free number) from irate customers complaining they never received their tracking numbers for their packages.

or...

Stop emailing tracking numbers altogether and if the customer wants a tracking number they will have to call to get it. Additionally do away with our toll free number so they will have to get it on their own dime.

We ship 100's of packages a day and at least 30% of order confirmations and tracking information emails we send bounces back because of spam filters.

IP's like earthlink, aol and their overkill anti spam filters are costing online merchants $billions.

lammert




msg:3085448
 3:02 pm on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

If that 30% of blocked order confirmations is only blocked because of IP blocklists like Spamhaus maintains, than it certainly won't cost you billions to solve it. A separate IP for your outgoing mailserver will cost around one dollar per month. In that case you know that no-one is using that IP address and if you end up in block lists, it was purely your fault.

But larger ISPs are often using more strategies than just blocklists to define which mail should be rejected and which to be passed through. You can't blaim a block list provider for those other strategies. You should blame the spammers who have invented so much different ways to send spam that only a combination of strategies is succesful to stop them. Colateral damage may be the effect.

jtara




msg:3085500
 3:40 pm on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

I certainly sympathize with merchants who are having difficulty getting tracking numbers, order confirmations, etc. to their customers.

However, don't blame spam blocking.

The fact is, the entire email system is fatally flawed and living on borrowed time. It was designed at a time when (figuratively) everybody left their front door wide open so that the neighbors could stop by and say "howdy" any time they wanted.

You are right to move in the direction of ditching email altogether, because that is the reality of it. You are seeing that in your non-delivery statistics.

What if the mailman brought everybody a truck-load of mail every day? What do you do? Everybody hires cheap immigrant labor to sort-through their mail. Unfortunately, they don't read English so well, and they throw out some mail that is important, while still letting through some of the junk. The futility of the situation would be obvious, and something would have to be done to stem the tide of junk mail.

Somehow, though, with email, the futility hasn't become obvious to the vast majority of those in a position to fix it. We need an entirely new system.

BTW, I concur with the post above: if you are a merchant, get a dedicated IP address for your email. My hosting provider doesn't even charge $1/month - they charge a $2 one-time setup fee.

Alternately, use a business-oriented email service that has a history of not being blocked. Or several, depending on the purpose of emails. Use a different, appropriate, services for mailing lists, automated order confirmations, etc. and for person-to-person (non-automated) email.

Yes, it's a pain in the butt. But necessary until the system is fixed. A bit of tweaking here or there is NOT going to fix it.

Wlauzon




msg:3085553
 4:20 pm on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

you should all know UNSOLICITED EMAIL is not SPAM...

This is pure and total bovine feces.

We have had to put in IP and many other blocks JUST because of the sheer volume of UCEM - what you call "not spam".

We have probably spent over 200 hours this year alone coming up with ways to block the kind of junk that apparently YOU think is OK to send to me.

And just for the record, we not only have the entire IP range of e360 blocked, but many other similar ones.

And we got a lot of the info from Spamhaus...

physics




msg:3085621
 5:01 pm on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

These lists do need more (or any) moderation. I know of cases where legit .gov domains were blacklisted.

iblaine




msg:3085715
 6:49 pm on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

I would rather have spam in my inbox than a US court that tries to police the internet overseas. Spamhaus is ignoring this ruling and rightfully they should. This judgement is silly.

lammert




msg:3085755
 7:31 pm on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

These lists do need more (or any) moderation.

The irony of the story is that Spamhaus is one of the best moderated black lists with very few false positives as a result. This is why it is used on many SMTP servers and probably why e360insight choose them to take to court.

But in general I agree with you. Just a few days ago I mentioned in another thread here on WebmasterWorld another well known domain-name based blacklist which lists godaddy.com, cnn.com and microsoft.com.

outland88




msg:3085780
 8:08 pm on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

>We have probably spent over 200 hours this year alone coming up with ways to block the kind of junk that apparently YOU think is OK to send to me.<

Amen to that.

And Lord knows how many times do you have to wonder if you slit your own throat by inadvertly blocking the wrong IP's. Hell these people to a large degree have already obsoleted formmail for your own customers. Then think about the addresses you must hide if you get any volume at all or sell products. Plus to protect a private box you practically need an arsenal of yearly subscriptions from Norton, McAfee, etc. What's it going to be like in the future when that one percent of people online in China increases. I would speculate 50,000 pieces of mail will have to be blocked for you to receive one legitimate piece.

incrediBILL




msg:3085781
 8:09 pm on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Here's some food for thought.

If you were a real spammer would you have the audacity to file a lawsuit in open court exposing your spamming acitivities to scrutiny?

Would you possibly bring any attention of failure to comply with CAN-SPAM out publicly, where it might attract attention of lawmakers?

I would say NO to both accounts unless you're really stupid.

Therefore, if someone isn't running a squeaky clean email operation, completely within the letter of the law, such a lawsuit would be suicidal.

Let's assume they aren't suicial and they were operating within the letter of the law then being deemed a spammer outside of the legal definition of a US spammer is theoretically defamation so SPAMHAUS would be in the wrong according to the US laws.

However, with that said, SPAMHAUS operating in the UK can build their RBL list to comply with UK laws and there is no harm, no foul. No foul, that is, until that list is distributed into the US where blocked companies are listed that are operating within the legal US definitions of proper email conduct.

The odds of collecting the award are slim, but I can see the potential for an injunction blocking access to SPAMHAUS from the US being a possibility if these guys push it further.

Let's sit back and enjoy the drama unfold with a little popcorn.

kaled




msg:3085822
 8:45 pm on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

E360 were just grandstanding... if they were serious they would have brought the action in the UK.

A while back, several critical emails that I sent didn't ever arrive - I'm not blacklisted and never did figure it out but I guess it's down to an over-aggressive spam filter somewhere. I don't blame the anti-spam engineers, I blame the spammers for creating the problem.

Spammers, if convicted, should serve one second in jail for every email they send out. For a second offence, it should be two seconds, etc.

Kaled.

UserFriendly




msg:3085832
 9:01 pm on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

blocking access to SPAMHAUS from the US

You can really see the US employing the sort of tactics that China uses to defend its goverment from criticism, just to stop a few lousy direct-mail companies sending their crap out to a bunch of people who choose not to receive stuff from their IP?

Really?

jtara




msg:3085841
 9:08 pm on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

I would say NO to both accounts unless you're really stupid.

There are some really stupid people who have made a lot of money on the Internet, but still did stupid things:

- Two CEOs of offshore gambling sites that acccepted US customers, who were stupid enough to come to the U.S., thinking they wouldn't be arrested

- The CEO of an online company who hooked-up with who he thought was an under-aged girl on MySpace, thinking he wouldn't be arrested.

- The CEO of an online company who crashed the Ferari he didn't own, (defaulted), splitting it in two, thinking he wouldn't be arrested?

These are just the ones that made the evening news.

In the face of that, why am I not surprised that a spammer would have the audacity to file a frivolous lawsuit.

antonaf




msg:3085905
 9:40 pm on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)


The standard definition of spam is "unsolicited bulk email". If a user hasn't opted-in, by subscribing himself (ideally with confirmation by email, or else, anyone could add other people's email addresses and the mailing list would be corrupted), it is unsolicited. Now, the US law only forbids a certain sub-groups of spam, which use false headers, etc. But if it's unsolicited and sent to a large group, it's spam, and if you send spam, people are allowed to protect themselves from you, by blocking your mailing IP address and by reporting you to your host for doing something against their Terms of Service (respectable hosting companies disallow spam using that standard definition). And to call you a spammer, which, I hope, you aren't. It's not defamation when it's true.

I completely agree with your statement. Thank you for clearing it up, because I wasn't talking about bulk email, just sending email to a person of interest, such as for "link exchange" etc. is not considered SPAM. But, YES, unsolicited bulk email would be considered SPAM. Thanks for clearing it up for me!

SuzyUK




msg:3085939
 9:56 pm on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

If you were a real spammer would you have the audacity to file a lawsuit in open court exposing your spamming acitivities to scrutiny?

Would you possibly bring any attention of failure to comply with CAN-SPAM out publicly, where it might attract attention of lawmakers?

I think YES, the longer they can keep their, squeaky clean or otherwise, business practices obscured and mired in FUD (fear, uncertainty & doubt), the longer they will earn from them.

The game is this case was filing in place where it was almost a certainty to get a default ruling (due to loopholes?) great for the PR dept! Even if they don't actually get the 11.7m! and what better way to do it that take advantage of the differences between UK/US Laws?

Create enough doubt and people might just give you the benefit of it?

Scottish Law has the "Not Proven" verdict, I think that this would have been appropriate here and would have been fairer than the default ruling e360 got, e360 could not have have proved that Spamhaus were blocking them from sending emails, because they don't block the sending, they just empower the end user with choice of receiving, e360 can send as many as they like, they just might not like the fact that not all their mailshots are reaching the end user!

Personally I don't actually care whether they're legit or not, I also have the local postage service "no bulk mail" choice ticked, which means along with double glazing companies offer of prizes I don't get Oxfam, Cancer mailshots delivered, yes I feel guilty about banning legitimate charities, but the paper pile is not copable with legitimate or otherwise.. email is worse!

my popcorn's butterscotch.. what's yours?

timster




msg:3085992
 10:46 pm on Sep 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

comply with CAN-SPAM

It's worth noting that CAN-SPAM, incomplete that it may be, merely outlaws certain activities, notably supplying falsified email headers. Complying with CAN-SPAM does not confer any status of "non-spammer" in U.S. law.

oneguy




msg:3086019
 12:10 am on Sep 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Complying with CAN-SPAM does not confer any status of "non-spammer" in U.S. law.

Nor does it mean I'm required to read anyone's compliant email.

goubarev




msg:3086052
 12:46 am on Sep 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

In my opinion what should have happened is that 360 should've talked to Spamhaus and see WHY they were on the list & WHAT do they need to do to get off it. I'm sure they were sending something that would trigger the listing. If they stop that, they would be taken off the list.

In my company we run few dedicated mail servers and Spamhaus list helps us fend off millions of spam emails every day - Thanks! God knows how many viruses, worms, trojans were stopped by them! I would donate $100 any day in benifit of Spamhaus. I would even recommend moving the operations to offshore company so screwed up American legal system and greedy lawers wouldn't get to it...

This reminds me of a business sueing the Better Business Bureu for publishing a honest customer complain... instead of actually fixing their busines...

oldpro




msg:3086079
 1:17 am on Sep 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

A separate IP for your outgoing mailserver will cost around one dollar per month. In that case you know that no-one is using that IP address and if you end up in block lists, it was purely your fault.

We have tried that.

We are not on any blacklist with any of our email address I am aware of. We make sure to send all emails in one connection to prevent throttling.

It is a little off subject, but the problem of rejected emails to communicate with customers goes beyond spam blocking...

Most of the rejected emails result from the recipient sending an auto reply stating we are not on their personal "approved" list.

No...it is not costing our company billions. I conjectured that the cumlative effect on all online merchants cost billions.

The collaterial damage is not the merchant, but the customer who expects high standards of customer service. Notifications of product shipment, order confirmations and the such will soon be a thing of the past via email until the system is overhauled.

Yes, I blame the spammers we had to deal with a couple of years ago, not the IP's for providing their customers protection from this irritation.

cwnet




msg:3086136
 3:26 am on Sep 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

OK, I read the first bunch of posts and simply find it unbelievable!

Bull#*$! festival! And, I am to annoyed to find out how qouting works.

And, Mods, before deleting this post you may want to consider that this post is not meant to flamebait but to bring a different perspective to the discussion. One I feel is very neccessary.

DamonHD: "10,000+ SPAMs aimed at me personally every day." - Personally? 10,000? Yeah, right! In ONE email account?

Hollywood: "I have 10,000 messages in there and note to public, I NEVER READ NOR SCAN THEM ANYMORE." - Again, ONE email account? Why don't you simply get rid of your email account? And, what do you mean by "note to public"? If you want more emails provide your address...

On topic - nobody and I repeat, NOBODY should be allowed to censor email communication for whatever reason!

If my post office (snake mail that is) refuses to forward any (even junk) mail to me I will sue them to their bones - their business is to FORWARD mail - any mail - and not only the one I or they like! And, I may add - without reading it.

I fail to see why electronic mail should be treated different. The only one to decide if an email is wanted or unwanted is the recipient. If it is unwanted, it will be deleted.

Therefore, I applaud the judgement.

However, I do recognize that the unwashed masses may need to be protected from using their brains when receiving emails. I also realize that there will always be somebody more than willing to provide that peace of mind for a small fee (or even without a fee if it helps moving forward on a dubious agenda).

Now, How do I ensure I get all the emails directed at me?

Maybe someone should offer an *email me service* where registered email addresses will get any email directed at them even if the sender is blacklisted somewhere.

tedster




msg:3086154
 4:02 am on Sep 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

I fail to see why electronic mail should be treated different.

1. The economics are profoundly different. Postal bulk mail has a postage requirement that makes the use of bulk mail self-limiting to the sender. Mass email costs only a micro-amount per recipient.

2. Bulk mail is not problematic to businesses that use postal mail communication to operate. Bulk email IS problematic to businesses that use email communication.

Comparing bulk email to bulk postal mail is not an apples-to-apples comparison. A new medium requires new cultural agreements.

jtara




msg:3086185
 5:43 am on Sep 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

10,000+ SPAMs aimed at me personally every day." - Personally? 10,000? Yeah, right! In ONE email account?

I can vouch for that number.

I had an email address that I used from 1995 until a couple of years ago. I used "spambouncer" to reject spams. It was running well over 10,000/day when I sold the domain it was on. I had to put a hold-harmless clause in the agreement regarding received spam.

Problem was, this account/domain went back to the "old days". I used to post on Usenet. Not prolifically - just the occasional post to technical programming groups, etc. This was before spam existed, so no reason to try to hide my address.

(BTW, I've got two original "Green Card Lawyers" T-Shirts. Wonder if I should put them on eBay? The Green Card Lawyers were the original spammers.)

And that's just for my personal account.

Some spammer decided to use the domain name for spam return addresses. The volume of bounces and angry complaint emails caused a minor crisis at my ISP and nearly shut them down for a couple of days. After that, I dropped the wild-card mailbox... The spammer was caught thanks to a hacker sleuth. The spammer turned over his profits of $800. That helped squelch the volume, but of course the addresses were picked-up by bots and wound-up RECEIVING spam as well...

(It's Mr. Gates problem now. The buyer of the domain turned around a year later and sold it to Microsoft. I think Bill can handle the spam... I have a new email address, and am more careful now. I use a Disposable Email Service for all my online registrations.)

Wlauzon




msg:3086275
 8:58 am on Sep 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

On topic - nobody and I repeat, NOBODY should be allowed to censor email communication for whatever reason!

If my post office (snake mail that is) refuses to forward any (even junk) mail to me I will sue them to their bones - their business is to FORWARD mail - any mail - and not only the one I or they like! And, I may add - without reading it.

I fail to see why electronic mail should be treated different. The only one to decide if an email is wanted or unwanted is the recipient. If it is unwanted, it will be deleted.

MORE total BS!

You are not being censored. You are being BLOCKED. There is a world of difference. You can use your "free speech" all you want, I am using MY option to NOT listen to you by using the Spamhaus list to block you.

You PAY THE POST OFFICE MONEY. Why is the practical and legal difference so hard to grasp?. The post office is a government organization that charges you money for a service. When YOU start paying 39 cents for each outgoing email, THEN you can whine about your mail not being forwarded.

If you cannot see why electonic mail is so much different in so many ways, legally and practically, then there is not much I can say.

To put it bluntly, I do not want your or anyone elses crap unsolicited email in MY box. *I* am the one paying for the mailbox, not you.

And I can believe the 10,000 emails a day. We are not that popular, but even then I see over 5,000 a week of trashed and bounced emails from the server stats. And it keeps going up as I add more and more filters. It has gotten to the point where I have almost the entire continent of Africa blocked now, and about 1/3 of Europe. My IP block list alone is hundreds of lines. But I don't mess around any more, I used to block each address as it showed up, now I just use something like 213.*.*

[edited by: Wlauzon at 9:05 am (utc) on Sep. 17, 2006]

This 82 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 82 ( 1 [2] 3 > >
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