FC: SpamArrest apologies for its spamming... well, sort of

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

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: declan () well com
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh () hserus net>
Subject: Spamarrest apologizes - well, sort of.
Cc: daryn () spamarrest com

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 <peter () stormlash net>
To: declan () well com
Subject: Re: FC: Politech members reply to SpamArrest's "right to spam"
References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030213232114.015a0a38 () mail well com>
Message-Id: <20030214142605.B0DF931F0B () acmey gatech edu>
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
peter () stormlash net  | sickbay, too! I know engineers, they LOVE to
http://stormlash.net | change things." - Leonard McCoy, ST:TMP

---

From: "Gary Funck" <gary () Intrepid Com>
To: <declan () well com>
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 <sdavis () DigitalAustin net>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
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" <PLEVY () citizen org>
To: <declan () well com>
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" <daryn () marinated org>, <declan () well com>,
   "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" <jonl () weblogsky com>
To: <declan () well com>
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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------