FC: Spammer-mocking critic replies to Politech posts

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Tue Nov 20 2001 - 23:15:36 PST

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Saudi Arabia blocks political websites, fosters terrorism?"

    Michael Fraase wrote me on Monday saying his DSL line is overloaded with 
    traffic but the site should be back up soon. Previous messages:
    
    Spammer replies: "Consequential and more severe actions will now be initiated"
    http://www.politechbot.com/p-02815.html
    
    Spammer threatens to sue writer over article mocking him
    http://www.politechbot.com/p-02813.html
    
    -Declan
    
    **********
    
    From: "Michael Fraase" <mfraaseat_private>
    To: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declanat_private>
    Subject: RE: Spammer replies: "Consequential and more severe actions 
    will  now be initiated"
    Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 16:06:43 -0600
    Organization: ARTS & FARCES LLC
    
    Declan,
    
    I'm replying to you directly. Do what you like with this. I've
    specifically removed Hobuss from the cc: list because I wish no further
    contact with him. I hesitate to respond to his points, but I will,
    inline below.
    
    --
    Michael Fraase
    ARTS & FARCES LLC
    mfraaseat_private
    www.farces.com
    PGP Fingerprint:
    3D85 F3F4 9E65 4949 176A  260C CB47 190D C864 9A96
    
     > -----Original Message-----
     > From: Declan McCullagh [mailto:declanat_private]
     > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 3:22 PM
     > To: politechat_private
     > Cc: jimhobussat_private; mfraaseat_private
     > Subject: Spammer replies: "Consequential and more severe
     > actions will now be initiated"
     >
     >
     > I invited Jim Hobuss (the alleged censorhappy spammer) to
     > reply to the
     > list, and he took me up on my offer. Previous message:
     >
     >   "Spammer threatens to sue writer over article mocking him"
     >   http://www.politechbot.com/p-02813.html
     >
     > -Declan
     >
     > ---
     >
     > From: "Jim Hobuss" <jimhobussat_private>
     > To: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declanat_private>
     > Subject: RE: "Spammer threatens to sue writer over article
     > mocking him"
     > Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:26:49 -0800
     >
     > I don't know you, and I don't know what your interest is in
     > this. What I do know is the following:
     >
     > 1) The email sent to Fraase originally, which he refers to as
     > spam, was not illegal. It included valid contact information,
     > and remove instructions.
    
    Sigh. I never claimed it was illegal. Quite the contrary, in fact. What
    I did was tell him that I wasn't interested and demand he stop. In the
    alternative, I offered a counter-proposal that if it continued I would
    invoice him at my standard invoice rate. Which I did.
    
     >
     > 2) The snippets of email Fraase includes on the referenced
     > Web page he posted are fabrications of the actual
     > correspondence that occurred between us.
    
    The email published in the referenced article is complete and accurate.
    Additional abusive email from Hobuss was received; I responded to them
    with the same demand to stop, the same counter-proposal, and another
    invoice.
    
     >
     > 3) The name-calling and character bashing Fraase includes on
     > his site present a situation for him where he is culpible for
     > disruption of business, slander, and defamation of character.
    
    I stand by my published opinion of Hobuss, his actions, and his business
    methodologies.
    
     >
     > 4) My attorney sent Fraase a letter, again which he
     > misrepresented, seeking immediate removal of the onerous Web page.
    
    The correspondence published in the referenced article is complete and
    accurate.
    
     >
     > 5) Fraase is continuing his beligerance in this matter.
     > Therefore, consequential and more severe actions will now be
     > initiated and followed through to conclusion. An acceptable
     > conclusion is no longer a removal of the Web page.
    
    The referenced articles remain in publication at www.farces.com
    
    I tend to agree with Judge Sporkin and Justice Berger with regard to
    spam:
    
    US Federal Judge Stanley Sporkin:
    "[Spammers] have come to court not because their freedom of speech is
    threatened but because their profits are; to dress up their complaints
    in First Amendment garb demeans the principles for which the First
    Amendment stands."
    
    Chief Justice Berger, U.S. Supreme Court:
    "Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any
    unwanted communication, whatever its merit. We categorically reject the
    argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise
    to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition
    operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no
    one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient.
    The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary
    of every person's domain."
    
    With regard to censorship I agree with Justice Brandeis that the answer
    is more speech, not restrictions on speech (would someone please provide
    the citation).
    
    **********
    
    From: "Tony Dye" <tonyat_private>
    To: <declanat_private>
    Subject: RE: Spammer threatens to sue writer over article mocking him
    Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 10:39:05 -0000
    
    hee hee... this made it onto Slashdot, and now is (predictably) completely
    balls-up. Here's the google cache, if you'd like to hit folks with a working
    link.
    
    http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:R7VWyB6BrGM:www.farces.com/farces/999462920/index_html+arts+farces+spammers+fun&hl=en
    
    -Tony Dye
    
    **********
    
    Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 14:45:34 -0700 (MST)
    From: security curmudgeon <jerichoat_private>
    To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>
    cc: politechat_private, jimhobussat_private, mfraaseat_private
    Subject: Re: FC: Spammer replies: "Consequential and more severe actions 
    will  now be initiated"
    
    
     > I invited Jim Hobuss (the alleged censorhappy spammer) to reply to the
     > list, and he took me up on my offer. Previous message:
     >
     >   "Spammer threatens to sue writer over article mocking him"
     >   http://www.politechbot.com/p-02813.html
    
     > From: "Jim Hobuss" <jimhobussat_private>
     >
     > 1) The email sent to Fraase originally, which he refers to as spam, was
     > not illegal. It included valid contact information, and remove
     > instructions.
    
    In his original reply, I don't recall him claiming your original mail was
    illegal, rather he called it spam (and defined spam in his web piece).
    
     > 2) The snippets of email Fraase includes on the referenced Web page he
     > posted are fabrications of the actual correspondence that occurred
     > between us.
    
    Why not make the full correspondence available for everyone to see then,
    show how he is not displaying the entire message? Why not also share the
    number of people you mailed that original piece to so we can get an idea
    what type of business market you are trying to reach?
    
     > 3) The name-calling and character bashing Fraase includes on his site
     > present a situation for him where he is culpible for disruption of
     > business, slander, and defamation of character.
    
    This is a stretch. First, slander is spoken, libel is written. Second,
    showing disruption of business is difficult in cases like this.
    
     > 4) My attorney sent Fraase a letter, again which he misrepresented,
     > seeking immediate removal of the onerous Web page.
    
    How did he misrepresent it? Was it not printed in full?
    
     > 5) Fraase is continuing his beligerance in this matter. Therefore,
     > consequential and more severe actions will now be initiated and followed
     > through to conclusion. An acceptable conclusion is no longer a removal
     > of the Web page.
    
    Good luck. heh
    
    **********
    
    Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 13:59:37 -0800
    From: Troy Davis <troyat_private>
    To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>
    Cc: jimhobussat_private, mfraaseat_private
    Subject: Re: FC: Spammer replies: "Consequential and more severe actions 
    will now be initiated"
    
     > 1) The email sent to Fraase originally, which he refers to as spam, was
     > not illegal. It included valid contact information, and remove
     > instructions.
    
    Where does Frause say it was or is illegal?
    
     > 2) The snippets of email Fraase includes on the referenced Web page he
     > posted are fabrications of the actual correspondence that occurred
     > between us.
    
    [snipped]
    
     > 4) My attorney sent Fraase a letter, again which he misrepresented,
     > seeking immediate removal of the onerous Web page.
    
    So post the unabridged versions.
    
    As a spammer, your credibility starts at zero, so you'll need to
    substantiate anything you say.  Don't just make claims, but back them up.
    
    Troy
    
    **********
    
    Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 21:10:38 -0500
    To: declanat_private
    From: Jim Ray <libertyat_private>
    Subject: Re: FC: Spammer replies: "Consequential and more severe actions
      will   now be initiated"
    Cc: jimhobussat_private, mfraaseat_private
    
    At 04:21 PM -0500 11/17/2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
    ...
     >1) The email sent to Fraase originally, which he refers to as spam, was
     >not illegal. It included valid contact information, and remove
     >instructions.
    
    ...
    
    Some things that may be "not illegal" also happen to be "not moral."
    
    Most of the spam I get these days includes "remove instructions," the
    problem that I have (aside from the media ignoring for-pay email that
    works, that is) is that I never gave the spammer any "add instruction,"
    and I don't believe them when they say they'll remove a name they've
    probably paid good money to buy from their lists. Sure, some of 'em
    will, but the spammer community is about like any hairspray-preacher
    on the idiot box -- lots of lies are exchanged for what they hope will be
    lots of faith. Can libertyat_private ever truly be removed from the for-
    sale lists bought by the spammers? No (and that's why I'm sending
    with that one!) but I wish it could. Spammers, like unsolicited phone
    callers, have never gotten penny-one from Jim Ray, so at least I'm
    costing them a bit of time.
    JMR
    
    **********
    
    Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 08:51:00 -0800 (PST)
    From: Nathaniel Echols <nathaniel_echolsat_private>
    Subject: Re: FC: Spammer replies: "Consequential and more severe actions 
    will  now be initiated"
    To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>
    Cc: politechat_private, jimhobussat_private, mfraaseat_private
    
     > From: "Jim Hobuss" <jimhobussat_private>
     >
     > I don't know you, and I don't know what your
    interest
     > is in this. What I
     > do know is the following:
     >
     > 1) The email sent to Fraase originally, which he
     > refers to as spam, was
     > not illegal. It included valid contact information,
     > and remove
     > instructions.
    
    For virtually all spam (at least the stuff I receive),
    these are not in
    fact valid, and remove information is often false.  I
    still think email of
    this type is abuse of network resources and invasion
    of privacy,
    regardless of legal status.  Case in point: I help
    answer technical
    questions for one of my jobs.  This requires a special
    account shared
    by about ten people.  Up to a third of the email sent
    to it is spam.  It
    isn't even a real person- more like 'postmaster'.
    This is a very clear
    case of network abuse- official accounts used for work
    purposes should never be subjected to uninvited
    personal commercial solicitations.  Fraase's account
    appears personal, but do any spammers even care?
    
     > 2) The snippets of email Fraase includes on the
    referenced Web page he
     > posted are fabrications of the actual correspondence
    that occurred
     > between us.
    
    How about posting the full exchange, unedited, for the
    benefit of Declan's readers like me who don't know the
    full story?  I'd guess none of us is ready to give the
    benefit of the doubt to anyone sending bulk email for
    personal profit.
    
    **********
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Nov 20 2001 - 23:38:36 PST