|
Email harvesters hit with $1billion spam lawsuit
A lot of people just got caught with their pants down.
Quote:
|
Nice, so there's still a chance that I can check my emails without deleting 500 unsolicted ones first.
|
damn....thats serious news
|
Quote:
|
Bout fuckin time
It's been so bad I've resorted to White List Email |
good - hope they crucify those motherfuckers!
|
good news :thumbsup
|
Quote:
|
Serious question: Is "harvesting emails" illegal? Under what law?
|
Lets say I have 400 AVS sites, and inside my members area I decide to have a newsletter. Ok so far right?
Now it's 4 years later, I have a very large email database and I decide to sell my list. Is this lawsuit trying to say the onus is on ME, the seller, to determine whether or not the email database will be used legally? Whats the slippery slope that could come out of this? Anything? Last I knew, if someone "harvested" by means of script or voluntary collection box, it's not illegal. And selling the data is not illegal. So is buying a list illegal? I dont think so. Is emailing to a bought list illegal? Not that I've ever heard. * So I think the bottom line from the article once you read it fully, is that they have identified some specific people and linked them to some specific "spammers", but it doesnt seem like it has precedent setting potential without some new laws. *if compliant with can-spam obviously |
Who are they going to sue? the server companies that spammers use with anon credit cards?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
you are within the law if people came and signed up by entering their email ina blank and then opted in through email later...hence, double opt in |
Good to hear.
|
Quote:
But the question was about selling the list, legallity of using a script to harvest emails, whether or not the onus is on the seller or the buyer or either and so on and so forth. If someone can point me to the law that says "email harvesting" is illegal, that'd be nice. I don't think it is, and I wonder if this will simply be thrown out because they seem intent on setting precedent and making the courts essentially "legislate from the bench", instead of making a new law. |
I wonder why they are so concerned with spam when I get flyers for shit I don't want in my mail box everyday. At least with spam you press the delete button and it's gone where as the shit that ends up in my mail box goes into the trash and then the landfill and it hasn't even been read. Don't get me wrong, spam is a pain in the ass (i get about 1000 a day) but I think that flyers are a much worse problem and also involve much more time, energy, and money to distribute.
|
Dude, no shit. My mailbox yesterday was stuffed, STUFFED with Clipper magazine addressed to "resident" (I get them once a week it seems!) also a newsletter from my local school (I have no children and never attended that school) and so many goddamn credit aps I could wallpaper my half bathroom.
oh! I forgot to mention I had ONE piece of mail. A wire receipt from my bank, lost in a sea of purest bullshit. |
oh oh! And while I'm venting, I hada phone call yesterday and this is how it went:
"hello?" "Hi, I need to speak to the person in charge of the <utility company name> bill." "Are you from <utility company name>?" "No I'm not sir, but..." "Then you mean you WANT to speak to that person, you dont NEED to, right??!" "Yes sir" "Dont fucking call me again!" click |
Quote:
Enjoy. |
bump this one up
|
yeah who pays for the bull shit newspapers mailings and advertising that gets stuffed into my mailbox and tossed on my porch every day...we have a separate recycle bin for that stuff every week....who pays for that shit?
besides most people are not blanket spamming addresses these days..it is all fairly targetted....not like pizza pizza who pays habid to dump flyers that get scattered all voer the streets |
Quote:
What they should do is sue the email harvesters for their client list who they sold their email list to. |
Quote:
|
That's destined to fail. Hey, I don't particularily like spam, but this is the internet.
|
The defendants in the case are the "John Does" responsible for e-mail harvesting and spamming, Praed said. "Spammers are very good at hiding themselves," he said. "But what they can't hide are the data points that they use [for spamming]. We have got a lot of those data points."
ermmn so they have nothing LOL what GREAT NEWS |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Suing John Doe for that money? Good luck.
|
Quote:
The people in the Honeypot project are posting unique,random email addresses that have never been used, so any existing email addresses that are part of any mailing lists will not count for this lawsuit. As much as I would like this lawsuit to succeed I don't think this is going anywhere. I once used a script that generated random email addresses to bog these harvester bots down and the site would get hit all day by these fucktards. The first email I ever had , which I think I made back in 1994-1995 or so gets around 500 spam email everyday. Good thing I'm now using gmail...their spam filter rocks. |
Looks like the lawsuit never was intended to 'win' and it won't. It's been started to give the Honeypot people some big publicity and has managed that in style :2 cents:
Shame as the volume of spam these days really annoys. Thankfully Cloudmark manages around 95%+ of it although the odd 5% can still piss you off. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
There goes all the free content for http://www.mycrapmail.com
|
Excellent news!
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:36 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123