Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
YuanTi

Let's get the Facts "Right"

Recommended Posts

Sadly... the intent of the Act is not followed by $pamCop... They have chosen to report "ALL" spam mail as illegal...and they have chosen to use the few parts of the Act to their advantage to make themselves more Money. (The American Way?)

The REAL Facts regarding the CAN-spam Act of 2003 are:

The term spam is a "catch all phrase" used on the internet... BUT the CAN-spam Act separates spam into the following two (2) categories.

1.) Legitimate spam... UCE (Unsolicited Commercial Email) that is sent following the guidelines as established by the Act. This UCE should not be reported to the FTC or any other internet web service. Such a report would be considered "fraudulent reporting" and may cause interruption of the sender's site or services. Simply ask to be removed using the system available within the email you receive.

2.) Deceptive, fraudulent or unfair spam... UCE that is sent without following the guidelines of the Act. This UCE should be reported to the FTC. Information about how to report this type of UCE is given below.

Contrary to widespread belief:

The CAN-spam Act does NOT ban spam = it Regulates spam.

It places restrictions upon commercial email as listed in #2 below.

Excerpt taken from Effectiveness and Enforcement of the CAN-spam Act: A Report to Congress Prepared and presented by Matthew Bishop, Ph.D. 12/20/2005

Full text report available at: http://www.ftc.gov/reports/canspam05/expertrpts.htm

NOTE: This is the same concept of regulation that the Federal Government has used for many years on junk mail sent to consumers through the US Postal System, newspaper ads, television ads, magazine ads, and other forms of advertising.

2.) What the CAN-spam ACT of 2003 requires of business' that send UCE. (Unsolicited Commercial Email)

1.) It bans false or misleading header information.

2.) It prohibits deceptive subject lines.

3.) It requires that your email give recipients an opt-out method.

4.) It requires that commercial email be identified as an advertisement and include the sender's valid physical postal address.

Full text available at: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/canspam.htm

Full text of CAN-spam Act 2003 is available at: http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.shtml

Interesting informal study...

GOOGLE/MSN/Yahoo search engines: I ran a search on the Google search engine with the key phrase "email list rental"... this is what I found: On the very first page of the results, they show 2 of the top 10 worst Hard Core spam Organizations in the World ( www.spamhaus.org ) as a place to obtain email lists!

These organizations are working to reduce spam??? Why then promote the Major sites that are responsible for nearly all spam??? (Another American Way story? For the Money???)

$PAMCOP: I consider this to be one of the Internet's "Low Life" organizations. They operate under the "Report all spam as Bad" concept. This is done so that they can ***Sell You Their Services!*** Without spam, this organization would cease to exist..... do you really believe they want to eliminate spam?

The problems created by this organization are quite extensive (Google - News = SpamCop) as they report huge amounts of legitimate email as spam which then creates HUGE amounts of additional work for legitimate operations to correct the problem.s

NOTE: Should you trust an organization that displays "Donate to our Legal Defense Fund" on their opening page??? Think about it. Also, they have No "Contact Us" area available on their pages.... hmmmmm. What are they hiding???

Interesting data you should be aware of:

spam emails recvd by my various e-mail accounts in September, 2006..... Hotmail = 35 spam emails... Verizon = 306 spam emails... Yahoo = 199 spam emails... LFC hosting = 70 spam emails. (LFC hosting was added to SpamCop's block list!) Why didn't $pamCop add Verizon or Yahoo to their Block List?

Has $pamCop added Hotmail, Verizon or Yahoo to their block list = EVER? Highly unlikely as these are very large organizations and able to cause severe damage to the $pamCop operations. $pamCop is simply a:

"Bottom Feeding"[/u][/i] type of organization that creates problems for only the smaller companies. Your company may be next?

Okay, now for all Members that just feel they have to defend $pamCop... jump right in here and tell me what it is I don't understand about the Act, $pamCop, the system and what words I have mi$$spelled... Surely $pamCop isn't doing this for the $$$$$$$$$$ and YOU are not a pawn in the $ystem they have created?

Edited by YuanTi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As stated in response to your last idiotic rant in another Topic .... why waste the time?

Contact addresses, web-form URLs are provided in numerous places, to include the 'official' FAQ, the single-page-access-expanded version here, the SCWiki, many postings .. on and on .... amazinglu enough, I'm looking at a FAQ entry that has the title of "How can I contact a SpamCop representative?" .. yeah, I know, one has to know how to read first I guess ...

Geeze, you can't even provide a good, solid link ... which by the way is already available in the FAQ I nailed together here .... try CAN-spam Act of 2003 - Bill Number S.877 for the 108th U.S. Congress for the actual text. Perhaps you could even actually try reading that whole dociment.

I know, more wasted breath/typing, as you demonstrated yet again that you haven't yet figured out how the SpamCopDNSLBL (or any other BL for that matter) actually works, who implements what where and how, on and on ...

Some ranting is allowed, that's why the Lounge area was set up .. However, there are limits .. and you are fast approaching them .... If you would like to do some research and start talking from an educated point of view, continue on ... continued spouting of this idiotic amd totally misinformed nonsense will result in some Admin action ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it walks like a trolling spammer, and talks like a trolling spammer..... :P

DT

Hm, Sharp's Corollary to Rule #1: Spammers attempt to re-define "spamming" as that which they do not do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... 1.) Legitimate spam... UCE (Unsolicited Commercial Email) that is sent following the guidelines as established by the Act.
Ain't legitimate or legal in this part of planet. Don't want it, still get it, thank goodness for SpamCop or we would be getting a whole heap more. Um ... the internet is sort of international - admitting I have yet to be spammed from Antarctica. But from the USA? - oh yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drumroll please....it looks as is YuanTi is back and about to make a stinging retort....hmmmm....the user status at the bottom of the page showed a posting being made and then YuanTi disappeared...wait....he DID actually post...just a bit delayed...see below.

Edited by DavidT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the answers above are pretty much typical of the Shallow Thinking available here in great abundance. Wasting your breath and time telling me what an uninformed person I am is of little value. I expected that response. :P

Suggesting that I read the Act was another waste of time... I have read the Act and I have actually studied it to determine the intent and read the follow up studies presented to Congress. If the Members here had done the same, they would then know that the Act is having "very little - if any effect" on the amount of spam and that SpamCop is simply using little parts of the Act to increase it's income.

Dragging out the slur that I am a Spammer is another bottom feeding remark. IF you took the time to read my post you would know that my complaint was with the blocking of my Host's email system that caused me a great deal of extra work....NOT that I was spamming. Engage brain before typing.

I did notice that none of the above $pamCop Defenders bothered to tell me why any of my statements were wrong. The summary of my rant was that $pamCop causes more work for legitimate web site owners than any time they save by deleting spam. If you have any doubt regarding this...take your head out of the sand (sic) and run a search on Google-News with the seach for $pamCop... you will be amazed at the trouble they create for a vast number of legitimate site operators! Better yet, send an email to the people that have experienced $pamCop's bungling system and get ready to be thrashed verbally.

Threaten to kick me off this forum? I view that as a "childish" response :lol: What is a forum without some different points of view? Do you really want a forum that is used to stroke each others egos and everyone agree with how right you are?

Perhaps I should start a site like $spamCop and designate myself as the One who decides which persons, which ISPs and which Hosts are allowed to send emails, who to send to and the acceptable content? Maybe we should all start such a site and then our point of views could be defended by a whole slew of poorly informed, shallow thinking lemmings?

Edited by YuanTi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SpamCop is simply using little parts of the Act to increase it's income.

You keep trying to say that spamcop is somehow making money from this. Please tell me how?

They offer reporting for free, they offer their blocklist for free. They accept donations for some additional reporting features, but that is it.

The separately owned email system probably makes money, but more from the companies that use their services than the individual accounts ($30.00/year)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should start a site like $spamCop and designate myself as the One who decides which persons, which ISPs and which Hosts are allowed to send emails, who to send to and the acceptable content? Maybe we should all start such a site and then our point of views could be defended by a whole slew of poorly informed, shallow thinking lemmings?

If you can present a good enough product that lots of people accept because it works and works well, then you should.

Spamcop clearly states it's intentions and methods. It is designed to stop spam runs while they occur, and therefore has a quick trigger. It clearly states that so Administrators know what they are using. It also releases IP's once the spam stops.

It also uses a definition of spam developed by the entire internet community, not by legislatures in one spacific country. The definition it uses is UBE (Unsolicited Bulk Email) or UCE (Unsolicited Commercial Email). Unsolicited, being the key part. If I did not authorize the email to be sent to that address, I should not need to do anything to stop email from coming to that address. I authorize those people I wish to receive email from to send me messages. Sending me messages I do not wish to receive is rude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've stated, no one here needs to tell you why you are wrong. Information you need to get educated already exists within the FAQs provided (for free)

If you want help, provide the data needed to get help.

If you want to rant, take the time to learn the facts so that the rant at least makes sense.

Usual 'instructional' bits that you haven't yet learned on your own ...

The SpamCopDNSBL cannot block anything ,, it's simply a list of IP addresses that have managed to meet the mathematical equation of too much "bad" traffic as compared to total traffic 'seen'

Implemetation of the SpamCopDNSBL is done by the "receiving" ISP .. blocking is not recommended by SpamCop.net themselves.

Tha CAN-spam act did not remove the concept of "my server - my rules" .....

The "Internet" is no longer the sole-province of the U.S. Government .... rumours are that even places like China, Korea, Bulgaria, etc. are somehow using it ....

Spammers have used the "trusted user" concept that the 'net' was built upon against the rest of the world.

Again, I don't wish to see so many people wasting their time on garbage such as this. Get "your" facts straight first .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dragging out the slur that I am a Spammer is another bottom feeding remark. IF you took the time to read my post you would know that my complaint was with the blocking of my Host's email system that caused me a great deal of extra work....NOT that I was spamming.

But that wasn't your first post here. Your first post was done on 10 Jan. 2006, the day you joined this forum. I'm not sure which topic you originally posted in, but your post was apparently not even related to that topic and so it got moved to the Lounge, here:

http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5855

You referred to the posts in this forum as "mindless wanderings"...and here's another quote:

From the latest reports to the FTC... spam is increasing, as well as lawsuits against the major ISP's that have over stepped their rights and slammed law abiding site owners. With the cost of Attorney FEE$, the major ISP'$ would serve their members better by simply suggesting everyone delete and/or Not Reply to spam.

Please cite some of those lawsuits against major ISPs that have "slammed" law-abiding site owners? Only ones in which there have been actual monetary awards paid out by those ISPs, please.

Someone who drops by here and suggests that life would be better if everyone simply deleted their spam is immediately suspicious as a spammer troll, because spammers don't want their actions to be hindered in any way, and they know that SpamCop is one of the effective tools used against them.

As for your recent post in someone else's Lounge topic, you provided no proof, no details for us to check, specifically the IP address that supposedly got listed on the SCBL. When people don't provide that information, further suspicion is naturally raised.

But my main reason for bothering to respond here is that I took up your challeng to do a Google News search on "SpamCop" and I sure had a hard time being "amazed at the trouble they create for a vast number of legitimate site operators" because there are currently only seven "SpamCop" hits on Google News right now, and none of them demonstrate problems cause for a "vast number" of anyone or anything! Here are the links....they'll not last long, given the transient nature of some of the postings, but check them out (listed in reverse chronological order):

E-mail Disrupted on Friday

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N45/45accounts.html

Guardian Unlimited Web

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/st...92783%2C00.html

No-cost solutions in the antispam ecosystem

http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/...id%3B1398720840

Dog owners warned over sugar-free items (wrong title displayed in search)

http://www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=5972

Guardian Unlimited Web

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/st...82026%2C00.html

No-cost solutions in the antispam ecosystem (dupe of other link)

http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/...%3B2%3Bfpid%3B2

Guardian Unlimited Web

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/st...76709%2C00.html

Only ONE of the links above is actually complaining about the SCBL (the one that's not really about sugar-free stuff for dogs), and that guy's rant is full of incorrect information, so the hits in Google News aren't anything at all like what you implied. Which Google were *you* using, anyway?

DT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the Members here had done the same, they would then know that the Act is having "very little - if any effect" on the amount of spam and that SpamCop is simply using little parts of the Act to increase it's income.

Well, we know that the Act is having 'very little - if any effect', but I don't see how you stretch that to saying that spamcop is increasing its income by using parts of the Act.

The summary of my rant was that $pamCop causes more work for legitimate web site owners than any time they save by deleting spam.

It may cause work for incompetent, careless, or irresponsible web site owners. In the spam wars there are no 'innocents' only ignorants.

Perhaps I should start a site like $spamCop and designate myself as the One who decides which persons, which ISPs and which Hosts are allowed to send emails, who to send to and the acceptable content? Maybe we should all start such a site and then our point of views could be defended by a whole slew of poorly informed, shallow thinking lemmings?

I am going to repeat several other posts: do some research before you make such statements.

'My server, my rules' is still the status quo on the internet. That means that you can be as ignorant as you want, but a server admin who is knowledgable doesn't have to accept any email from you.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The term spam is a "catch all phrase" used on the internet... BUT the CAN-spam Act separates spam into the following two (2) categories.
And to get the Facts "Right" spam not spam.

The use of spam to refer to UCE is an infringment of Hormel Foods famous trademark spam

We do not object to use of this slang term to describe UCE, although we do object to the use of the word "spam" as a trademark and to the use of our product image in association with that term. Also, if the term is to be used, it should be used in all lower-case letters to distinguish it from our trademark spam, which should be used with all uppercase letters.
Please see our Wiki page spam which contains links to various definitions of spam as well as links to Hormel's spam products web site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, now for all Members that just feel they have to defend $pamCop... jump right in here and tell me what it is I don't understand about the Act, $pamCop, the system and what words I have mi$$spelled... Surely $pamCop isn't doing this for the $$$$$$$$$$ and YOU are not a pawn in the $ystem they have created?

You seem to be confused about law and the internet. Let me set you straight. It does not matter what some lobbyist inspired bill says when it comes to spam. It all comes down to the "my server, my rules" law of the internet. SpamCop helps those of us with servers to keep spammers away from our systems. If SpamCop were not there, we'd still do the job, but instead of just one group to deal with, you'd have every sysadmin on the planet to deal with. Your rights stop at the border of my domain. Period. End of discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you people couldn't find any recent new regarding problems created by SpamCop because they are "blocking" or "blacklisting" your search engines... So, I did a little reseach for you... Enjoy.

“Recent” problems created by SpamCop… it is apparent that there would be 1,000’s more if most of the people affected knew where and how to complain!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/5027/53/

Internet spam cops threaten anti-spam vendor…

By Stan Beer Thursday, 20 July 2006

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://hosting365status.com/2006/10/04/spamcop-blacklisting/

SpamCop Blacklisting Published October 4th, 2006 in Mail

spam cop provided no advanced warning of the blacklisting to us.

"Justin Mason is the author of SpamAssassin, the leading open source anti-spam tool."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://web.corspro.com/theproductivityedge...roductivit.html

Brian Cors is President of Cors Productivity Solutions, Inc.

Within the past 24 hours, I have personally encountered two examples of over-zealous cyber-protection that have resulted in reduced productivity, lost time and much frustration. Over-zealous protection can even impact your relationship with clients, prospects and colleagues.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.danshafer.com/onemind/?q=node/222

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://spamfinder.blogspot.com/2006/09/spam-hysteria.html

Saturday, September 09, 2006 “spam Hysteria”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.seocompany.ca/seo-blog/2006/09/...o-company-down/

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://dave.redterror.net/2006/10/02/spamc...sts-and-policy/

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://jonpatch.wordpress.com/2006/09/22/the-tail-wags-the-dog-spammers-outwit-spamcop/

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=73590&seen=1

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://mikesblog.americasdebate.com/2006/10/14/spamcop-go-to-hell/

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://my.opera.com/realmkeeper/blog/show.dml/498644

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://weblog.johnlevine.com/Email/spamcop.html

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=5972

= Bible Prophecy newsletter Blacklisted!

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In the event that you think the recent problems created by SpamCop are unique… here is one posting from over 2 years ago. I could go back a few more years but there would be no point.

http://www.langa.com/newsletters/2004/2004-05-31.htm

"Kennedy Space Center Blacklisted"

I am FURIOUS at these self-appointed guardians of the internet.

They have caused me more aggravation and more Denial-Of-Service than spam ever has. And that's just at home. Now, they have caused a denial of service at a major government installation. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people worldwide that depend on our e-mail system for everything from education to scientific research to national security.

I am tired having to put up with a "cure" that is far worse than the disease.

Blacklists/Blocklists were once valuable tools, but are now woefully obsolete--- it's a crude, sloppy, outmoded approach to spam control that often ends up doing far, far more harm than good. Someday, ISPs will wake up to that fact. Sigh.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If you take the time to read the articles I have listed with an Open Mind, you will come to the simple conclusion that the SpamCop system is creating a huge amount of work for “Legitimate” site owners…. Far, Far more work and costs than the actual spam ever would.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxx

I have seen various terms used to describe the SpamCop operation: Most are quite fitting… I share them here to bring a smile to your face.

SpamCop = Email Vigilantes

SpamCop = Email Gestapo

SpamCop = Ku Klux Klan of Email

SpamCop = Anti-spam Zealots (commune type community)

SpamCop = Anti-American system (You are guilty until proven innocent?)

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Someone here thinks that SpamCop = owned by IronPort Systems isn’t making money on this… C’mon, IronPort Systems went public last year and their profits are now a matter of public record… look them up on one of the financial web sites to learn their profits. A company that is losing money does not go public and if one of it’s divisions are losing money, they dump the loser. Just the way the financial world works.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

2006 Lawsuit against Spamhaus…. The Plaintiff was awarded $11.7 million! Check it out on Google. Why do you people continue to insist on keeping your heads in the sand? Look around and you will see what is happening.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Don’t add a post if you are only going to attempt to define the difference between spam and spam… grow up, this forum is not about food…. It is about spam and you should understand that on this forum, no matter which way a person spells it, we are talking about spam. Sheeez, if all you can add is spelling and grammar corrections, you are on the wrong forum.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lastly, I will not be back for a while… if the information I have provided does not make you stop and rethink your positions…. There is probably no hope for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lastly, I will not be back for a while… if the information I have provided does not make you stop and rethink your positions…. There is probably no hope for you.

Why should anyone rethink blocklists when it is only those who are ignorant or incompetent who are whining? (or arrogant as in the case of Langa).

To be influenced by the opinions you posted is like being influenced to always drive 30 mph over the speed limit because those who have gotten a ticket whine that it is unfair because it made them late to work.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lastly, I will not be back for a while

"Dump and run" = spammer behavior. See? I was right! ;-)

What a chicken-xxxx thing to do YT. Much of what you've just posted is easly debunked and countered with actual facts and truth, but I don't think anyone should bother. Instead, we should celebrate your announced departure and remember the sage advice of many netizens..."don't feed the trolls." :P

DT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banned due to harrassment of other Forum users via PM and e-mails

Member No: 5090

YuanTi (71.115.24.24)

mose1951[at]verizon.net

Banned (7 Posts)

Joined: 10-January 06

uses moseleyh[at]hotmail.com in the message traffic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it walks like a trolling spammer, and talks like a trolling spammer..... :P
Wow....I didn't know how much on target I was with this comment! Anyone with any Google skills will quickly discern my meaning. :rolleyes:

DT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×