I suspect SpamArrest's change of heart wouldn't have happened without Politech members getting involved, which is a credit to the folks who participate in this list. It's good to hear that SpamArrest has apologized and says it won't do it again. But I'm not sure why me sending email to a SpamArrest customer would make me a "verified user of SpamArrest," as they seem to believe. Not a good sign. "Politech members reply to SpamArrest's 'right to spam'" http://www.politechbot.com/p-04461.html "SpamArrest replies to Politech, defends its right to spam" http://www.politechbot.com/p-04457.html -Declan --- Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 07:57:08 +0530 To: declanat_private From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <sureshat_private> Subject: Spamarrest apologizes - well, sort of. Cc: darynat_private Declan, Spamarrest's website - http://spamarrest.com - now has this (boilerplate sounding) apology on its homepage. >Spam Arrest Apologizes >Recently we have received some inquiries regarding a mailing we delivered >to some verified users of Spam Arrest. > >While this contact was completely covered by our privacy policy, our >customers concerns come first. > >Because of this, Spam Arrest has ceased sending such solicitation and will >not send unsolicited bulk email again. Spam Arrest apologies for any >inconvenience this action may have caused anyone. As long as they persist with repeating the lie contained in the first two paragraphs, I wouldn't advocate unblocking them. Yes, their statement is a lie, of the "suppreso veri" and "suggestio falsi" varieties. It hides part of the truth - that it was clearly delivered to lots of other people, not just verified users of spamarrest. Spamarrest's privacy policy might let them mail verified users of spamarrest (ie: people with spamarrest accounts). It suggests something false - that contact with these non users is "covered by spamarrest's privacy policy". People who get spamarrest notices because they post to a mailing list which a spamarrest member is subscribed to, and then delete / procmail to /dev/null all further spamarrest notifications, are definitely _not_ users, and spamarrest's "privacy" policy does not apply to them. >Because of this, Spam Arrest has ceased sending such solicitation and will >not send unsolicited bulk email again. Spam Arrest apologies for any >inconvenience this action may have caused anyone. <rimshot>"apologies for"? Jesus, I thought English is most people's mother tongue stateside ... someone ought to give whoever wrote that a spel chekar for his next birthday.</rimshot> Seriously, isn't there a basic contradiction here? If it is covered by spamarrest's privacy policy, and is mailed to a verified user of spamarrest, the mail is solicited by definition. That they admit to sending UBE means that the mail they sent out is NOT covered by their privacy policy. Sheesh. Nice doublespeak, Spamarrest folks, but it really won't fly, you know ... srs -- Suresh Ramasubramanian + suresh <@> hserus dot net EMail Sturmbannfuhrer, Lower Middle Class Sysadmin --- From: Peter Sahlstrom <peterat_private> To: declanat_private Subject: Re: FC: Politech members reply to SpamArrest's "right to spam" References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030213232114.015a0a38at_private> Message-Id: <20030214142605.B0DF931F0Bat_private> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:26:05 -0500 (EST) > This evening I heard back from Daryn at SpamArrest in a message that I was > told I could excerpt but not forward to the list. Apparently the response > to Daryn has been overwhelming. Fair enough. Daryn said: "We didn't think > it was spam, we thought it was a valid marketing idea. I'm guessing we > won't do it again." > Declan, The SpamArrest statement reminded me of an article I read recently... (from This is True, by Randy Cassingham - http://www.thisistrue.com/incomp.html) Even Your Best Friends Won't Tell You Sure there are a lot of incompetent people around. The problem is, they don't know it, says Dr. David A. Dunning, a psychology professor at New York's Cornell University, in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. He says that the reason they don't know is that the skills people need to recognize incompetence are the same skills they need to be competent in the first place. Thus the incompetent often end up "grossly overestimating" their own competency, even when they're making a mess of things. At the same time, very competent people tend to underestimate their abilities. Dunning notes such studies create a unique danger for the researchers. "I began to think that there were probably lots of things that I was bad at and I didn't know it," he said. (New York Times) ...If you want to know what they are, just ask your wife. -- Peter Sahlstrom | "And they probably redesigned the whole peterat_private | sickbay, too! I know engineers, they LOVE to http://stormlash.net | change things." - Leonard McCoy, ST:TMP --- From: "Gary Funck" <garyat_private> To: <declanat_private> Subject: RE: Is Spam Arrest resorting to... spamming? Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:22:04 -0800 Just fyi, this individual contacted SpamArrest, and this page chronicles his exchange: http://www.groovymother.com/archives/000545.html he took action, forwarding all the spam he received to an individual that he corresponded with at SpamArrest. The individual threatened to sue him, and so on (See the "what happened next" link). Fortunately for me: free, open source SpamAssassin caught their spam cold. The author above notes there's a free Windows version of SpamAssassin for POP3 users at: http://www.bloomba.com/saproxy/ - Gary --- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 03:37:06 -0600 From: Scott Davis <sdavisat_private> To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private> Subject: Re: FC: Politech members reply to SpamArrest's "right to spam" [For politech, if you wish... thanks] What's sad is that about 60% of the mail I receive on a daily basis is spam. Procmail does a wonderful job by letting in mail that I explicitly tell it to, and then putting everything else into a seperate folder (or send to /dev/null). But I shouldn't have to do this. I didn't ask for ANY of it. Lets play a little frame of Jeopardy. Contestant: I'll take "Scumbag Loosers" for $300, Alex. Answer: Individuals who breath through their mouth, drag their knuckles on the ground when they walk, either have no upward mobility or choose to live at the expense of others. Crackheads and prostitutes are usually above these people. They claim that you can opt-out, but don't provide a valid address to do so. They claim that you signed up for their program, but you've never heard of them before. It costs the average person many hours of time to clean up their mess. If you met them in a dark alley, you would like to dislocate their jaw with a keyboard. Question: What are "Spammers" Dylan has proven to be a living, breathing example of every piece of spam that I have received lately. Typical claims by loosers who think they have two brain cells to rub together. I wonder if he would take a different perspective if someone used procmail to forward all the spam they receive over to him and add a paragraph stating "Since your address was mined from Politech, consider youself spammed. But we'll let you opt-out by clicking here <a href "hahaha!">Moron!</A>. --- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:44:14 -0500 From: "Paul Levy" <PLEVYat_private> To: <declanat_private> Subject: Re: FC: Politech members reply to SpamArrest's "right to spam" Is a "privacy policy" on this point any more enforceable, as a practical matter, than any other promise not to do it again? If another message were sent in arguable violation of either promise, someone would do what, sue for damages? Get an injunction? Hard to imagine that..... Paul Alan Levy Public Citizen Litigation Group 1600 - 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 588-1000 http://www.citizen.org/litigation/litigation.html --- From: "SteelHead" <bill@ries-knight.net> To: "Daryn Nakhuda" <darynat_private>, <declanat_private>, "SteelHead" <bill@ries-knight.net> References: <000601c2d456$31c6bfe0$6401a8c0@cod> <077401c2d45c$d23edc90$6501a8c0@platypus> Subject: Re: SamSpade.org (2).htm Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:48:38 -0800 I am a private systems and network security analyst providing consultations and support on all things computer. I recommend solutions that work, and am very particular that any solution have a clean image. Right now I perceive your product has a compromised status insofar as you reserve the right to email your customers and any person on each customers whitelist. I wish to speak with you in regards to this perception and a possibly different reality. I am home today (doing nice things for Valentines day). Office, 209-933-0800 cell , 209-518-1687 home, 209-951-8233 Regards, Bill Ries-Knight Stockton, Ca --- From: "jon lebkowsky" <jonlat_private> To: <declanat_private> Subject: RE: Politech members reply to SpamArrest's "right to spam" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:25:09 -0600 > This evening I heard back from Daryn at SpamArrest in a message > that I was > told I could excerpt but not forward to the list. Apparently the response > to Daryn has been overwhelming. Fair enough. Daryn said: "We didn't think > it was spam, we thought it was a valid marketing idea. I'm guessing we > won't do it again." Kind of hard to believe that a company marketing a spam filter wouldn't know when they were spamming...? best, Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Feb 19 2003 - 09:09:59 PST