Spirited debate for Spamcop users

[potomuss]

OK, I understand what Spamcop is and that it's generally a good thing. I even used it myself for awhile. But is it really fair that those of us who actually run a legit list which complies in every way with federal law be punished by unscrupulous spamcop users? And with no appeals process to boot?

According to PCWorld.com:

"CAN-spam requires that spam e-mail include a working return e-mail address, a valid postal address for the sending company, a working opt-out mechanism, and a relevant subject line."

So wouldn't it seem logical that if an email complied with this federal law in every way, you would be safe to use the removal mechanism? Rather than not use the removal system, report it as spam, and go through the same thing every month because you never took steps to get your name off the database in the first place? Or maybe spamcop should be a bit more creative about checking for proper formating. Or following up with the originator. And two reports to get listed? Come on.

Don't get me wrong, I know that spamcop is used by people who have made the choice to use it and I'm not trying to turn the flame on the courteous and helpful people here in the forum. But it seems to me that some users of your system are operating at a fanatical level.

I wonder if they take into consideration the fact that jobs DO depend on people buying and selling goods. And that many people DO have jobs because their business found a channel of opportunity via the internet. And ya know what, if you ever had a business, you would know that you have to advertise so people know you're there. Yes, some of us are running legit lists and we do in fact remove you when you ask. Heck, I even have a do-not-email list that everyone goes on when the request to be removed from the main database. That way if I ever have to deal with a new list, I scrub real good first. Just so I don't piss those fanatical wackos off.

I know you all hate spam, I do too. But (and this is a really bad Indiana Jones analogy but oh well) just because you have a gun doesn't mean you have to use it every time. Sometimes the whip is fun too! Ok, you can all kick my butt now.

[Miss Betsy]

There are two things wrong with your scenario.

CAN-spam came along too late. There is no way that I will open an unsolicited email (I don't even open Mailer Daemon email) except in Message Source. And if there is any advertising at all that I have not specifically asked for (though usually I remember and don't have to check it out), I would not open it nor use the removal mechanism by copying because of the bad reputation of spam in general. For the average user, there is no way of telling whether an email conforms to the specifications of the act since most do not look at header information and would not know what to look for any way. So the CAN-spam act came along too late for anyone to gain an advantage by following it to the letter.

And the second thing is that, mathematically, there are two many online businesses who might want to contact me to advertise that even if they were above board businesses, any person in their right mind would not have time to open and look at unsolicited advertising.

There are too many ways for online businesses to attract customers that unsolicited email is superfluous and unnecessary for a successful business. And there are lots and lots of people who will sign up for all kinds of lists, who like to look for a bargain. And others who will sign up for the products and companies they are interested in. There is just no need for unsolicited email advertising.

To use your analogy, you don't have to use a gun for advertising - just because you can.

Miss Betsy

[Jeff G.]

The simple fact that a piece of email complies prima facie with CAN-spam has no bearing on whether or not the sending of that piece of email violates the sender's contract with the sender's ISP and/or the advertised URL's ISP and/or their Upstreams, or trespasses against the chattels of the recipient. SpamCop Users/Members/Customers use Spamcop as a tool to help them notify those ISPs of the potential contract violations and trespasses - it is up to the ISPs and their Upstreams to enforce their contracts, whether or not they are under the jurisdiction of CAN-spam.

E-mail is generally not considered to be a "guaranteed delivery" mechanism. Also, server administrators may refuse incoming traffic for any reason, at least in the U.S. (47 USC 230).

Are you following the requirements for running mailing lists responsibly? Please see Basic Mailing List Management Guidelines for Preventing Abuse, Mailing Lists -vs- spam Lists, and Best Practices for Mailing List Management for more info.

Also, you can appeal reports by SpamCop Users/Members/Customers to the SpamCop Deputies using their email address "deputies at spamcop.net", and you can appeal listings by the SCBL (SpamCop Blocking List) to the SCBL Administrators using their email address "bl at admin.spamcop.net".

Thanks!

[Wazoo]

seem logical that if an email complied with this federal law in every way

I haven't seen one of these yet, so I don't have an anwer to your query.

run a legit list which complies in every way with federal law

Now you're mixing apples and oranges. spam and "legit list" shouldn't be in the same room, much less in a single (attempted) rant. I can't even begin to guess at where you found "federal laws" that concern "legit lists" ....

unscrupulous spamcop users

sounds like a bit of a challenge ... if you had evidence of this, you would make your accusations known, and if evidence existed that showed your charges to be true, SpamCop user(s) would be fined or banned.

if you ever had a business, ... you have to advertise

Well, there's advertising, and then there's advertising ... oh, and you decided to add in both spam and "legit lists" in your post and tie them into "advertising" ... Lemme see, there's the phonebook, there's the newspapers, there's things called search engines, web pages, and even (unbeknownst to at least 99% of the newsgroups spammers) actual newsgroups set up for advertising of new/current businesses, on and on ... I'd suggest the flip side is .. in a legitimate business enterprize, advertising is carried on the books as a business expense. Not quite in the same ballpark as spam.

two reports to get listed

That's just one variable in a bit of a mathmatical formula.

Don't see much of a reason to "kick your butt"especially as it sounds like someone has already made the attempt. But it does sound like you're pitching some kind of a bitch, but haven't taken all the steps needed to straighten things out. You say "legit", I say "heard it too many time before" ... so show me ...

[potomuss]

Well, thanks for the point of view and info Miss Betsy and JeffG. Yes, I follow the guidelines to a T but I've printed them out for upper management all the same! Thx!

Wazoo.... heh, a little rabid today eh?

Haven't seen an email that complies with fed law? That's because only about 1% actually do. So according you you they don't exist right?

"spam and "legit list" shouldn't be in the same room"

This is a spam site. My email complies with federal law. You do the math.

"if you had evidence of this"

It's my opinion until I have proof. But this is a forum ya know. Last time I checked, opinions were allowed. And it's not worth my time to dig up logs, back emails, etc just to prove it. (however, I would like to see the evidence and get these people off my list)

"in a legitimate business enterprize, advertising is carried on the books as a business expense."

Concerning this statement and all the rest you said there, I agree with you. But the feds say it's legal. It's a law. This country is based on the rule of law, not the opinion of Wazoo. Sorry dude.

[Jeff G.]

What IP Addresses are you sending from? Perhaps some of us have evidence in hand. Thanks!

[potomuss]

Hi Jeff,

I already emailed the deputies for it.

If they don't provide it, I'll post the ip.

Or, since your a moderator, check the ip from my post here, should be the same.

Thanks!

[potomuss]

na, heck with that

(removed due to abuse)

looking for header x-id that has a number.

with that number, I can get them off my database and onto my do-not-email list.

Thanks for any assistance!

You guys are pretty cool.... FOR COPS!

And as an added leap of faith that I just want to run a clean list and not upset anyone, feel free to email any of this information to abuse at speedcolor.com

[Miss Betsy]

This country is based on the rule of law, not the opinion of... 

Unfortunately, the internet is based on netiquette. It is not mannerly to force one's way into private space. The definition of spam is email that is unsolicited and unwanted. And email service providers can use any methods they want to protect their customers from spam. Those who use methods that are what customers want will have better success than those who don't. That's the other law of the internet - economics supply & demand.

Responsible marketers and newsletter publishers have already established workable "best practices" (or "manners") for the use of the internet. If anyone is unmannerly, then the response from Miss Manners is the "cut direct" and the internet equivalent is a blocklist.

So what happens on the internet doesn't depend on laws nor opinions (yours or anyone else's), but consideration for others as evidenced by netiquette.

Miss Betsy

[Jeff G.]

216.166.200.34

Lets see here...

http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblo...=216.166.200.34 shows:

216.166.200.34 is 216-166-200-34.clec.peknil.commercial.madisonriver.net

216.166.200.34 listed in bl.spamcop.net (127.0.0.2)

Since SpamCop started counting, this system has been reported less than 10 times by less than 10 users. It has been sending mail consistently for at least 37.8 days. In the past 781.3 days, it has been listed 16 times for a total of 28.8 days

In the past week, this system has:

Been witnessed sending mail about 60 times

A sample sent sometime during the 24 hours beginning Sunday 2003/11/02 19:00:00 -0500:

Received:

Subject: november specials from -

From: ma.. at ..r.com

A sample sent sometime during the 24 hours beginning Wednesday 2004/02/25 19:00:00 -0500:

Received: from -.-.com ([216.166.200.34]) by -.-.com with - -(-.-.-.-)-

Thu, - Feb 2004 - -

Subject: free shipping -

From: ma.. at ..r.com

SpamCop reports for 216.166.200.34 go to abuse at madisonriver.net.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3A...+216.166.200.34 shows one hit, http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020...z&output=gplain (or http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020....canned-ham.biz if you like graphics)

Did you send that particular email? If not, who did, and is that person or organization supposed to comply with your rules?

What is "mktsrc=emailbizoppJune02"?

Why does that particular email not contain "a valid postal address for the sending company"?

Thanks!

[potomuss]

Well put and I agree with you 100%.

Here are some numbers for you:

Number of addresses in list: about 43,000

Number of removals every month: avg about 25

Number of site visits based on emailing: avg about 1,500

Number of sales generated by monthly email: avg $35,000 / month

Number of spam complaints per month: usually about 2

Number of new sign ups (double opt-in) a month: avg 50 or so

As you can see, there are far worse offenders than me.

If one were to put one's information into a public database with the understanding that that information would be used for marketing purposes. Then I don't see how any marketing attempts that cross into their private space could be considered bad manners. It's not person advertising the service that's to blame. It's the person who blindly signs the dotted line.

Furthermore, I know what netiquette is and I understand the rules of the internet. I do everything in my power to make sure I don't cross the lines.

The internet may very well be based on netiquette, but netiquette will never hold up in court. Even so, I agree with your statement. I think the rules of the net are sometimes more fair than the ones in the law books.

[potomuss]

Jeff, those are from two years ago! Actually, from one of the first emails we ever sent out. But yes, that is the company.

the mktsrc is a querystring in the list that let's us know where the visitor was refered from. this one is something to do with bizopp, a list we bought off the net. Learned our lesson about buying crappy lists on that adventure.

[Jeff G.]

Please call me "Jeff G." or "JeffG" here, as I'm not the only Jeff.

I know that was from two years ago, but that was the only sighting I had to go on.

I'm glad that you learned your lesson.

Have you asked "abuse at madisonriver.net" for copies of the recent reports? If so, what was their response?

[potomuss]

Sorry JeffG!

Yes, I've requested the info from the ISP. Still waiting on the response.

And thank you for the help!

[Wazoo]

Wazoo.... heh, a little rabid today eh?

You're entitled to your opinion.

So according you you they don't exist right?

I believe I said that I couldn't answer your query, never having seen one. I'd say you did some extrapolation to make this query.

"if you had evidence of this"

It's my opinion until I have proof. But this is a forum ya know. Last time I checked, opinions were allowed. And it's not worth my time to dig up logs, back emails, etc just to prove it. (however, I would like to see the evidence and get these people off my list)

You made no mention of any of this in your first post. That's the reason I pointed out that there were two sides to actions taken by whom. It didn't appear that you were aware of this side of the "bad reporting" sceanario.

Concerning this statement and all the rest you said there, I agree with you. But the feds say it's legal. It's a law. This country is based on the rule of law, not the opinion of Wazoo. Sorry dude.

not sure I grok at all where you're coming from there or even where you think I was coming from .. as far as "it's the law", I have to point out my first comment again .. I have yet to see one that fits the definition of "legal" spam.

As fas as "this country" .. after doing the 20+ defending things like your right to freely express your opinions here, there, and everywhere .. then doing 8 years of divorce ... I can tell you that my opinion means squat, and "the rule of law" isn't necessarily the ivory tower of justice either.

In the back of my mind, I was willing to give you credence all the way, thinking that perhaps you had found yourself in the same boat as some other folks, Langa comes to mind. Nothing wrong with his newsletter, though he still has the silly thing that asks one to "send/sign up a friend" that causes some issues, but the largest problem was that he was using a list-mail service that was also spewing out spam ... He'd go on a rampage about folks not receiving his newsletter (hey, I was one of them, numerous times) and it was all because of those damned block-lists out there ... but never once did he seem to address the issue that it wasn't "him" that was blocked, it was the server of that outfit he'd contracted with to send his newsletter out .. an outfit that also took money from other not-quite-so-honaorable clients. But, you offered little detail that might have addressed this kind of situation, so that thought stayed in the back of my mind, paying more attention to responding to the words you did offer up.

[Miss Betsy]

There was another person here not too long ago wondering why people report after they have actually /paid/ for a subscription.

If you truly have a confirmed subscription list, then you can always reply to the report address. Asking for their email address so that they can be removed is not a good idea because spammers have lied about that. But explaining that you do have a confirmed subscription list and that you would appreciate it if the reporter would review the email to be sure s/he hadn't subscribed (or someone in the family had without telling them). Also point out that sometimes people change email addresses and forget to notify all the lists they are on. If the reporter has a fairly new address, perhaps, it had been signed up by the previous owner.

If someone has made a mistake, hopefully an apology would be made and you could remove that name.

However, using someone else's confirmed subscription list is a no-no.

And hiding the fine print several pages away in a privacy statement is not ethical business (offline there are laws against that type of chicanery).

And using the laws to do what people see is unmannerly is only going to get laws passed against you in the end. Not that it will make any difference to the internet since no one wants junk emails - particularly when it so easy to pick and choose what kind of advertising one does want.

Miss Betsy

[Jeff G.]

I forgot ask you to please review How can I get SpamCop reports about my network?.

[potomuss]

Heh! You guys are great!

I want you to know that I do appreciate your insight and opinion. I've gained some new perspectives from this conversation and, although I don't agree with everything, I agree with most of it.

And Wazoo, thank you for defending my right to free speech. And I'm not kidding around about that.

[potomuss]

I forgot ask you to please review How can I get SpamCop reports about my network?.

So I can request to have a copy of reports made against my IP from spamcop via the 3rd party method?

[Wazoo]

Yes, you can make the request. Depending on the justifications and agreements, your address will show up as an "interested third party" ... but, due to some nefarious activities in the past, there's no guarantee that spam reporters will leave your checkbox marked, so you may not see all of the complaints.

[potomuss]

Understood, ty!

[WB8TYW]

If your mailings are to people who have confirmed that they want to receive them, you may still get some spam reports because people make mistakes.

Mainly when they trust blindly what a spam filter tags as spam is actually spam, and confirm the reports with out checking.

But if my public e-mail addresses get hit by a an opt-out spammer, if spamhaus.org or the spamcop.net do not list them, the postmasters tend to put the I.P. address in their local blocking list.

And it does not matter if the spam complies with the can-spam law or not.

My main postmaster's official terms of service prohibit me from unsubscribing from spam that I did not subscribe to. And they will take action to stop the spam from coming in.

-John

Personal Opinion Only

[gwelsh]

But is it really fair that those of us who actually run a legit list which complies in every way with federal law be punished by unscrupulous spamcop users?

Why do you say "unscrupulous spamcop users"?!? They are not spamcop users who drew your name out of a hat and harassed you, they are all recipients of your mailing list. Why are you not referring to them as "unscrupulous recipients of my bulk e-mail"?!?

You also seem to be under the impression that compliance with the CAN-spam act makes your e-mail legitimate. However, you may still be in violation of your Terms of Service/Acceptable Use Policy and of other laws both in the United States and in other jurisdictions worldwide.

I ask you to ponder this analogy: there's probably no federal law against sticking your tonge out at someone but, if you walk around sticking it out at everyone you see confident that you're legitimate, you're still eventually going to get a punch in the face and there will be a lot of other annoyed people who didn't go that far but are applauding the person who did.

So wouldn't it seem logical that if an email complied with this federal law in every way, you would be safe to use the removal mechanism?

Another analogy: there are laws regulating gun use and most people obey them (while it seems that only a few bulk mailers obey the CAN-spam act), but does that mean that it's necessarily safe to let a stranger with a gun into your house? Of course not, because you have no idea whether that person is trustworthy. The fact is that most unsubscribe requests are a waste of time, but some simply encourage the spammers to send more mail to 'confirmed' victims. You are apparently a stranger to the recipients of your mail, and they do not trust you with their unsubscribe requests.

I wonder if they take into consideration the fact that jobs DO depend on people buying and selling goods.

The world of commerce existed (and seemed to be doing quite well, thank you) long before e-mail was invented, and it does not depend on e-mail to continue. The fact that people make a living from something does not make it right, and I hope that I don't need to provide a (potentially inflamatory) example to illustrate this.

Finally, I leave you with one thought: people hate spam for many reasons and individual mailings may be wrong or even illegal for any number of reasons, but there is one reason why it is always wrong to send advertising to people without their PRIOR permission: the recipient pays the bulk of the delivery cost, and taking advantage of that is theft. Even 'good' bulk mailers who comply with the CAN-spam act are thieves; my final analogy: I steal (something small, don't want to ruin anyone's lives) from every house in a city... but it's alright because I'll gladly stop stealing from anyone who's willing to tell me who they are so I know which house to take off my list.