vilain Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 I'm the webmaster for a site and domain that somehow got put on a electronic newsletter mailing list. I LART'ed the site and cc'd the admin contact in whois requesting to be removed. I also entered the email address into the "Remove Me" link in the newsletter. Yes, I know that was probably a mistake. The guy went totally cartoony, threating defamation litigation unless I ceased and desisted. That was back in April. A week later I got 2 more emails, which I just reported to Spamcop. All was quiet until yesterday. I got a couple more email newsletters with an explaination that they re-added a bunch of addresses that were supposedly fraudulently opted-out. I re-added our email to the opt-out list and LART'ed the site, and cc'd the admin. Again with the cartoony response. Spamcop had 10 entries for the domain in the last week, which doesn't seem like so much. A couple questions: - I removed us twice from this newsletter but the big gap in between seems to indicate that the publisher seems legit and our site got put on the list somehow. I know "Spammers lie", but could this case warrent cutting the owner some slack? Perhaps he readded our address, thinking it was mistakenly removed. - If things get ugly and he does sue. It may all hinge on how we got added to the list in the first place. His list is "powered by dadamail 2.1" in which the URL is no longer working, so there's a real gray area on how we got on it in the first place. But that assumes a judge will understand how the web and technology works. Is that likely? It may just be that this is some clueless crusader who mistakenly added us back to the list that we got added to by mistake back in April. If it happens again, should I just put the domain on the blacklist and just forget cc'ing the crusading owner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agsteele Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 - I removed us twice from this newsletter but the big gap in between seems to indicate that the publisher seems legit and our site got put on the list somehow. I know "Spammers lie", but could this case warrent cutting the owner some slack? Perhaps he readded our address, thinking it was mistakenly removed. 36144[/snapback] I would say not. It looks to me as if you've been particularly patient. You've provided more than most would do so it would be easy for him to remove you from his list. - If things get ugly and he does sue. It may all hinge on how we got added to the list in the first place. His list is "powered by dadamail 2.1" in which the URL is no longer working, so there's a real gray area on how we got on it in the first place. But that assumes a judge will understand how the web and technology works. Is that likely? 36144[/snapback] Is it true that a judge will understand the web and technology? No, but that isn't his/her task. But presupposes that he will sue and be successful in getting to court. What will he sue you for? Asking to be removed from his list? Asking his mail provider to assist in getting you removed? (I'm not a lawyer & offer no professional opinion). It may just be that this is some clueless crusader who mistakenly added us back to the list that we got added to by mistake back in April. If it happens again, should I just put the domain on the blacklist and just forget cc'ing the crusading owner? 36144[/snapback] That's exactly what I'd do. Let his service provider tackle him/her and threaten to pull the plug on him (that's probably what raised his ire in any case). Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Remember, Spammer's Standard of Discourse: Threats and intimidation trump facts and logic. Can you tell us what site the spam is coming from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 I got a couple more email newsletters with an explaination that they re-added a bunch of addresses that were supposedly fraudulently opted-out. Perhaps he readded our address, thinking it was mistakenly removed. 36144[/snapback] These 2 comments are not the result of good list management. No address should ever be added to a list without confirmation that the current owner of the address wants the traffic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 I'm the webmaster for a site and domain that somehow got put on a electronic newsletter mailing list. Missing data ... is the "webmaster[at]" address that is receiving these e-mails? I LART'ed the site and cc'd the admin contact in whois requesting to be removed. I also entered the email address into the "Remove Me" link in the newsletter. Yes, I know that was probably a mistake. The guy went totally cartoony, threating defamation litigation unless I ceased and desisted. Though the contents of your e-mail has not been disclosed, the above actions are a bit hard to define as defamation, lacking in even the barest of "public exposure" of any details or comment. I got a couple more email newsletters with an explaination that they re-added a bunch of addresses that were supposedly fraudulently opted-out. I re-added our email to the opt-out list and LART'ed the site, and cc'd the admin. Again with the cartoony response. Spamcop had 10 entries for the domain in the last week, which doesn't seem like so much. s compared to one I fealt with that used the excuse .. "server crash, so we had to rebuild out database from backups" ... as I hadn't heard anything from them in over 8 months, one would have to ask what their backup plan must have been? Then they repeated the same exercise 6 months later. That time they got to go find a new ISP. - I removed us twice from this newsletter but the big gap in between seems to indicate that the publisher seems legit and our site got put on the list somehow. I know "Spammers lie", but could this case warrent cutting the owner some slack? Perhaps he readded our address, thinking it was mistakenly removed. Trust on the Internet was lost when it was opened up for "public" use. - If things get ugly and he does sue. It may all hinge on how we got added to the list in the first place. His list is "powered by dadamail 2.1" in which the URL is no longer working, so there's a real gray area on how we got on it in the first place. But that assumes a judge will understand how the web and technology works. Is that likely? It's not up to a judge to "understand" ... it's up to the folks involved in the litigation process to develop and expose the "facts" such that law can be applied. If you wanted to get into the parnoid mode, you would remove the hard drive that contains the data you have on hand now (the 'spam', your e-mails, those replies, etc.) and this would be sealed up and placed under controlled storage for the day that it would be needed in court. Noting of course, you'd also then have to have subpoened the technical experts required to satisfy the legal part of entering in this evidence, expalining the chain of events, somehow extracting that data off of the drive to serve up the "actual evidence" .. on and on .... but of course, as this wasn't done "at the time" there will probably be the issue of now-tainted evidence ... It may just be that this is some clueless crusader who mistakenly added us back to the list that we got added to by mistake back in April. If it happens again, should I just put the domain on the blacklist and just forget cc'ing the crusading owner? 36144[/snapback] Entirely your call. More light might be available if more data was provided, but ... for the paranoid, that would feed into the possible 'defamation' issue <g> Background here: I've long lost count of the times I was "going to be sued" .... There's even one ISP that started at 2 million dollars and is now up to 10 million dollars (assume U.S. dollars?) in the threats to sue me for not removing any reference to his/their IP addresses found within this Forum. I'm having a hard time in working up to being afraid of this proposed action <g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vilain Posted November 16, 2005 Author Share Posted November 16, 2005 Can you tell us what site the spam is coming from? 36160[/snapback] http://northamericanconsumersagainsthealthfraud.org/ is the domain. Tom Bolen is the cartoony owner. He only reacted when I cc'd the fact that I sent his emails to spamcop for processing. Missing data ... is the "webmaster[at]" address that is receiving these e-mails? The address to which the email was sent isn't listed on our web site pages. We use a contact form and only someone who's sent us email and gotten a reply _from me_ would get the address. Or someone who's seen our various hardcopy mailings and put the address on the site (again to generate traffic). The guy went ballistic at my threats to continue sending all emails from him to his DNS registrar (GoDaddy.com) who I know will remove spammers from DNS per their hosting agreement. Is calling someone a spammer defamation, per se? I can prove the emails he sent were UCE, which was to term I used back in April. No prior business relationship, request for removal ignored, removal link didn't work, and cartoony response--all seemed to point to the fact that this guy is either clueless about double opt-in or really is a spammer. In the emails sent back and forth (I know, a waste of time), I pointed out that the burden of proof would be on him to prove we added ourselves to his list fraudulently with the malice aforethought. We have no prior business relationship with him and so his emails are UCE, AFAICT. Would server logs be enough to prove that the IP address of the sign-up request came from someone other than me or the Board of Directors? I doubt he has them going back to April or even further, but that would be good for us. It's pretty clear that if this happens again, I'll go to GoDaddy and ask them to bounce him with the evidence I have. My concern over the threats of litigation is that the non-profit I'm running the site for doesn't want to spend the funds they have on some nut who claims I defamed him by calling him a spammer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 ...Noting that IANAL, nor do I play one on TV, I'll offer the following observations: <snip> Is calling someone a spammer defamation, per se? <snip> 36172[/snapback] ...Why even raise the question (unless you have already publicly called him a spammer)? Simply describing the facts of what he has done should be sufficient, I would think, for whatever action you would like to have taken against him, per:I can prove the emails he sent were UCE, which was to term I used back in April. No prior business relationship, request for removal ignored, removal link didn't work, and cartoony response--all seemed to point to the fact that this guy is either clueless about double opt-in or really is a spammer. <snip> 36172[/snapback] ...BTW: ouch! "Double opt-in" is a spammer term. The preferred term here among us anti-spammers is "confirmed opt-in." Not that I'm accusing you of being a spammer because you used that term! <big g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 We have had these jokers blocked for a few months on our servers. Looking at recent reports tells a story. Report History: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Submitted: Monday, November 14, 2005 10:50:10 AM -0500: Health Freedom Protection Act (HR 4282) Introduced Into US Congress... 1555787016 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: abuse[at]adnc.com 1555787007 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: postmaster#adnc.com[at]devnull.spamcop.net 1555786991 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: josh[at]webintellects.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Submitted: Monday, November 14, 2005 6:05:06 AM -0500: Health Freedom Protection Act (HR 4282) Introduced Into US Congress... 1555523862 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: postmaster#adnc.com[at]devnull.spamcop.net 1555523860 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: abuse[at]adnc.com 1555523859 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: josh[at]webintellects.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Submitted: Monday, November 14, 2005 2:18:37 AM -0500: Health Freedom Protection Act (HR 4282) Introduced Into US Congress... 1555377264 ( z_User_Notification ) To: [concealed user-defined recipient] 1555377262 ( z_User_Notification ) To: [concealed user-defined recipient] 1555377259 ( http://www.bolenreport.net ) To: abuse[at]theplanet.com 1555377257 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: josh[at]webintellects.com 1555377254 ( http://northamericanconsumersagainsthealthfraud... ) To: postmaster#adnc.com[at]devnull.spamcop.net 1555377253 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: postmaster#adnc.com[at]devnull.spamcop.net 1555377252 ( http://northamericanconsumersagainsthealthfraud... ) To: abuse[at]adnc.com 1555377250 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: abuse[at]adnc.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Submitted: Friday, November 11, 2005 11:58:29 AM -0500: In Health Care "Constant Vigilance" is the Answer... 1553174950 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: postmaster#adnc.com[at]devnull.spamcop.net 1553174949 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: abuse[at]adnc.com 1553174948 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: josh[at]webintellects.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Submitted: Friday, November 11, 2005 6:41:38 AM -0500: In Health Care "Constant Vigilance" is the Answer... 1552933101 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: abuse[at]adnc.com 1552933100 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: postmaster#adnc.com[at]devnull.spamcop.net 1552933099 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: josh[at]webintellects.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Submitted: Friday, November 11, 2005 2:02:41 AM -0500: In Health Care "Constant Vigilance" is the Answer... 1552793183 ( http://www.bolenreport.net/ ) To: mole[at]devnull.spamcop.net 1552793181 ( http://northamericanconsumersagainsthealthfraud... ) To: mole[at]devnull.spamcop.net 1552793178 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: mole[at]devnull.spamcop.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Submitted: Friday, November 11, 2005 12:26:10 AM -0500: In Health Care "Constant Vigilance" is the Answer... 1552742337 ( http://www.bolenreport.net/ ) To: abuse[at]theplanet.com 1552742334 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: spamcop[at]imaphost.com 1552742333 ( http://northamericanconsumersagainsthealthfraud... ) To: josh[at]webintellects.com 1552742332 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: josh[at]webintellects.com 1552742326 ( http://northamericanconsumersagainsthealthfraud... ) To: postmaster#adnc.com[at]devnull.spamcop.net 1552742323 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: postmaster#adnc.com[at]devnull.spamcop.net 1552742319 ( http://northamericanconsumersagainsthealthfraud... ) To: abuse[at]adnc.com 1552742314 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: abuse[at]adnc.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Submitted: Thursday, November 10, 2005 11:04:39 PM -0500: In Health Care "Constant Vigilance" is the Answer... 1552708812 ( http://www.bolenreport.net/ ) To: abuse[at]theplanet.com 1552708809 ( http://northamericanconsumersagainsthealthfraud... ) To: postmaster#adnc.com[at]devnull.spamcop.net 1552708807 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: postmaster#adnc.com[at]devnull.spamcop.net 1552708798 ( http://northamericanconsumersagainsthealthfraud... ) To: abuse[at]adnc.com 1552708795 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: abuse[at]adnc.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Submitted: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:27:40 AM -0500: California Medical Board Hears FINAL "Enforcement Monitor" Report - and Chang... 1550551886 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: abuse[at]adnc.com 1550551879 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: postmaster#adnc.com[at]devnull.spamcop.net 1550551860 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: josh[at]webintellects.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Submitted: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 9:08:38 AM -0500: California Medical Board Hears FINAL "Enforcement Monitor" Report - and Chang... 1550499178 ( http://www.bolenreport.net/ ) To: abuse[at]theplanet.com 1550499176 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: spamcop[at]imaphost.com 1550499173 ( http://northamericanconsumersagainsthealthfraud... ) To: josh[at]webintellects.com 1550499171 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: josh[at]webintellects.com 1550499169 ( http://northamericanconsumersagainsthealthfraud... ) To: postmaster#adnc.com[at]devnull.spamcop.net 1550499168 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: postmaster#adnc.com[at]devnull.spamcop.net 1550499165 ( http://northamericanconsumersagainsthealthfraud... ) To: abuse[at]adnc.com 1550499162 ( 209.216.213.97 ) To: abuse[at]adnc.com Older Reports Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Hmmmmm ... http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=...healthfraud.org Domain ID:D93563032-LROR Domain Name:NORTHAMERICANCONSUMERSAGAINSTHEALTHFRAUD.ORG Created On:31-Dec-2002 23:19:24 UTC Last Updated On:03-Oct-2005 20:17:13 UTC Expiration Date:31-Dec-2006 23:19:24 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:Go Daddy Software, Inc. (R91-LROR) Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED Registrant ID:GODA-02162701 kind of makes me think that some action has been taken on this Domain name, though admitting it's been a while since I looked at a FoDaddy listing ... just don't recall seeing all of the client items being prohibited???? 11/16/05 12:04:44 Slow traceroute northamericanconsumersagainsthealthfraud.org Trace northamericanconsumersagainsthealthfraud.org (209.216.213.97) ... 209.216.213.110 RTT: 82ms TTL:208 (vds8.secure-wi.com ok) 209.216.213.97 RTT: 80ms TTL: 51 (northamericanconsumersagainsthealthfraud.org ok) 11/16/05 12:04:28 Browsing http://northamericanconsumersagainsthealthfraud.org/ No such server as northamericanconsumersagainsthealthfraud.org Though http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnstime.ch?n...raud.org&type=A offers up a score of "F" for DNS timing ... on the other hand, IE tries to load up some stuff, but my firewall won't allow all the framed stuff to show up ...??? If you want to go upstream, hosted at; whois -h whois.arin.net !net-209-216-213-0-1 ... OrgName: Web Intellects OrgID: WEBIN-2 Address: 2420 Grand Ave Address: G-2 City: Vista StateProv: CA PostalCode: 92081 Country: US NetRange: 209.216.213.0 - 209.216.213.255 CIDR: 209.216.213.0/24 NetName: WEB-INTELLECTS-NETBLK8 NetHandle: NET-209-216-213-0-1 Parent: NET-209-216-192-0-1 NetType: Reassigned NameServer: NS1.HOSTDNS4U.COM NameServer: NS2.HOSTDNS4U.COM Comment: RegDate: 2004-12-09 Updated: 2004-12-09 RTechHandle: LGE3-ARIN RTechName: Geiger, Len RTechPhone: +1-760-477-1100 RTechEmail: geiger[at]webintellects.com OrgTechHandle: LGE3-ARIN OrgTechName: Geiger, Len OrgTechPhone: +1-760-477-1100 OrgTechEmail: geiger[at]webintellects.com :google: Define: defamation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.