FC: Spammer-mocking critic replies to Politech posts

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

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" <mfraase () farces com>
To: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declan () well com>
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
mfraase () farces com
www.farces.com
PGP Fingerprint:
3D85 F3F4 9E65 4949 176A  260C CB47 190D C864 9A96

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Declan McCullagh [mailto:declan () well com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 3:22 PM
> To: politech () politechbot com
> Cc: jimhobuss () home com; mfraase () farces com
> 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" <jimhobuss () home com>
> To: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declan () well com>
> 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" <tony () bluetree ie>
To: <declan () well com>
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 <jericho () attrition org>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
cc: politech () politechbot com, jimhobuss () home com, mfraase () farces com
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" <jimhobuss () home com>
>
> 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 <troy () nack net>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Cc: jimhobuss () home com, mfraase () farces com
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: declan () well com
From: Jim Ray <liberty () gate net>
Subject: Re: FC: Spammer replies: "Consequential and more severe actions
 will   now be initiated"
Cc: jimhobuss () home com, mfraase () farces com

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 liberty () gate net 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_echols () yahoo com>
Subject: Re: FC: Spammer replies: "Consequential and more severe actions 
will  now be initiated"
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Cc: politech () politechbot com, jimhobuss () home com, mfraase () farces com

> From: "Jim Hobuss" <jimhobuss () home com>
>
> 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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------