* jdow wrote (14/05/06 02:09):
From: Gary W. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On another paw, Craig, do consider who is the injured party. Marc is
not. The final recipient, the addressee, is an injured party for the
spam in her mailbox. The addressee's ISP is also an injured party due
to the
=should not sue spammers if I can do it? I'm wondering if I make enough money
=suing spammers I could give my services away for free just to get the spam to
=sue for.
=
=Someone tell me if I'm nuts?
=
I have attended the annual spam conference at MIT. (You can probably
google it up.) One
jdow wrote:
From: Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jdow wrote:
Well, Marc would have a really hard time proving HE was injured by the
spam. Therefore seeing would be annoyingly unproductive for HIM. But
the ISPs forced to hire him could sue and win. (Collecting might be
quite another kettle of
jdow wrote:
From: Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mouss wrote:
Rick Measham wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
... I do front end spam filtering for about 500 domains.
... I'm wondering if I
make enough money suing spammers I could give my services away for
free just to get the spam to sue
Scott Warren wrote:
You ask this like you know who the spammers are and where to find
them. If this is the case and spammers are that easy to find, why are
we not reading more articles like the one where a spammer in the
former Soviet Republic was found beaten to death in his apartment??
One gets the idea that many in this thread have had little experience
of litigation. I don't know about the US, but in the UK, you're
talking *many* months and much paperwork. That being said. I'm so up
for suing the SOB's ... hit em where it hurts.
A small addendum, once a private prosecution
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
One gets the idea that many in this thread have had little experience
of litigation. I don't know about the US, but in the UK, you're
talking *many* months and much paperwork. That being said. I'm so up
for suing the SOB's ... hit em where it hurts.
A small addendum,
: John Rudd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: SpamAssassin Users users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 18:51
Subject: Re: Suing Spammers
If it works, let me know ... and let me know the name of your lawyer :-)
Cuz, I'd jump on that bandwagon in a heart beat
should not sue spammers if I can do it? I'm wondering if I
make enough money suing spammers I could give my services away for free
just to get the spam to sue for.
Someone tell me if I'm nuts?
No, you're not nuts, at least not in the EU:
http://spamlegalaction.pbwiki.com/
Rules in CA might
Some of the state laws in the U.S. are stronger than the Federal Government's
laws.
In Georgia where I live, there is a pretty good law for this type of thing:
http://www.gov.state.ga.us/press/2005/press765.shtml
Now, interestingly, I've recently taken on several different law firms as mail
wondering, is there any
reason why I should not sue spammers if I can do it? I'm wondering if I
make enough money suing spammers I could give my services away for free
just to get the spam to sue for.
Someone tell me if I'm nuts?
No, you're not nuts, at least not in the EU:
http
From: Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some of the state laws in the U.S. are stronger than the Federal Government's
laws.
In Georgia where I live, there is a pretty good law for this type of thing:
http://www.gov.state.ga.us/press/2005/press765.shtml
Now, interestingly,
On Saturday, May 13, 2006, 8:46:46 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
RMPS Add all this up and I'm quite sure that they had to be
RMPS violating that law in Georgia.
I may have missed something - what would be violative of CAN-SPAM
and/or Georgia law here? I'm a bit familiar with the GA law because,
as
On another paw, Craig, do consider who is the injured party. Marc is
not. The final recipient, the addressee, is an injured party for the
spam in her mailbox. The addressee's ISP is also an injured party due
to the (vastly) increased mail volume her servers must handle. They
have a tort
Craig McLean wrote on Sat, 13 May 2006 14:18:31 +0100:
http://spamlegalaction.pbwiki.com/
Rules in CA might be a little different, but the principle is likely to
be the same..
Just that you don't get hold of the nasty spammers. And the nice
spammers are easily blocked.
Kai
--
Kai
jdow wrote:
Well, Marc would have a really hard time proving HE was injured by the
spam. Therefore seeing would be annoyingly unproductive for HIM. But
the ISPs forced to hire him could sue and win. (Collecting might be
quite another kettle of French fried worms.)
I don't have to prove
I thought CAN-SPAM preempted all state's laws.(?)
Robert Braver wrote:
On Saturday, May 13, 2006, 8:46:46 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
RMPS Add all this up and I'm quite sure that they had to be
RMPS violating that law in Georgia.
I may have missed something - what would be violative of CAN-SPAM
Rick Measham wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
... I do front end spam filtering for about 500 domains.
... I'm wondering if I
make enough money suing spammers I could give my services away for
free just to get the spam to sue for.
Someone tell me if I'm nuts?
To be completely cynical, you're
On Saturday, May 13, 2006, 4:55:48 PM, Bronto wrote:
B I thought CAN-SPAM preempted all state's laws.(?)
CAN-SPAM does not preempt state laws to the extent that those laws
deal with falsity and deception. Provisions relating to
forged/missing/obfuscated headers, deceptive subject lines, etc.,
mouss wrote:
Rick Measham wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
... I do front end spam filtering for about 500 domains.
... I'm wondering if I
make enough money suing spammers I could give my services away for
free just to get the spam to sue for.
Someone tell me if I'm nuts?
To be completely
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Craig McLean wrote on Sat, 13 May 2006 14:18:31 +0100:
http://spamlegalaction.pbwiki.com/
Rules in CA might be a little different, but the principle is likely to
be the same..
Just that you don't get hold of the nasty spammers. And the nice
spammers are easily
So a good rule of thumb is that since I'm legit, I follow CAN-SPAM.
Real spammers have to contend with state laws too.
Rob
Robert Braver wrote:
On Saturday, May 13, 2006, 4:55:48 PM, Bronto wrote:
B I thought CAN-SPAM preempted all state's laws.(?)
CAN-SPAM does not preempt state laws to
From: Gary W. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On another paw, Craig, do consider who is the injured party. Marc is
not. The final recipient, the addressee, is an injured party for the
spam in her mailbox. The addressee's ISP is also an injured party due
to the (vastly) increased mail volume her servers
From: Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jdow wrote:
Well, Marc would have a really hard time proving HE was injured by the
spam. Therefore seeing would be annoyingly unproductive for HIM. But
the ISPs forced to hire him could sue and win. (Collecting might be
quite another kettle of French fried
From: Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mouss wrote:
Rick Measham wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
... I do front end spam filtering for about 500 domains.
... I'm wondering if I
make enough money suing spammers I could give my services away for
free just to get the spam to sue for.
Someone tell
considering it. I hooked up with a lawyer today who specializes in
it and I do front end spam filtering for about 500 domains. I'm
wondering, is there any reason why I should not sue spammers if I
can do it? I'm wondering if I make enough money suing spammers I
could give my services away for free
On Saturday, May 13, 2006, 7:40:25 PM, Bronto wrote:
B So a good rule of thumb is that since I'm legit, I follow CAN-SPAM.
B Real spammers have to contend with state laws too.
I don't have all the facts as to this (theoretical?) situation, so
I'll answer the long way.
Under CAN-SPAM,
enough money suing spammers I could give my services away for free
just to get the spam to sue for.
Someone tell me if I'm nuts?
specializes in it
and I do front end spam filtering for about 500 domains. I'm
wondering, is there any reason why I should not sue spammers if I can
do it? I'm wondering if I make enough money suing spammers I could
give my services away for free just to get the spam to sue for.
Someone tell me if I'm
Marc Perkel wrote:
... I do front
end spam filtering for about 500 domains.
... I'm wondering if I
make enough money suing spammers I could give my services away for free
just to get the spam to sue for.
Someone tell me if I'm nuts?
To be completely cynical, you're nuts.
If you're
Rick Measham wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
... I do front end spam filtering for about 500 domains.
... I'm wondering if I
make enough money suing spammers I could give my services away for
free just to get the spam to sue for.
Someone tell me if I'm nuts?
To be completely cynical, you're
31 matches
Mail list logo
