Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Article showing the anti-spam company SpamArrest is sending unsolicited e-mails.

    The spam sent violates California state law, and probably some others.

    Their take on Spamming - and get a glimpse at the reality of many con-artists riding the wave of anti-spam anti-parasite S/W downloads.

    Mike & Charlie ...

    If they won't adopt and feed a bird ..flip them one! BBQ some Gator and remember to flush WhenU..

    [This message was edited by Haiko on September 23, 2003 at 02:08 PM.]

  2. #2
    Full Member c4's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 17th, 2005

  3. #3
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    St Clair Shores MI.
    The anti-spam group out earn the unsolicited e-mail marketing wanks. Great new source for e-commerce legal news is

    It has been a good week in the battle against spam. In the US, two spammers have been ordered to pay $250,000. In China, authorities blocked 127 servers that were used to launch spam attacks. And globally, anti-spam firms are set to make lots more cash than spammers.

    The business of spam – unsolicited commercial e-mail – is making money, but not just for those sending it. Wired News has counted no less than 150 suppliers of anti-spam products and services. It cites research from the Radicati Group that estimates this anti-spam market's revenue at $653 million for 2003, rising to $2.4 billion by 2007.

    By contrast, the senders of the ads for enlargement pills and get-rich-quick scams that created this defence market will earn between $11 million and $111 million this year.

    Human nature being what it is, the anti-spam companies must hold some hope that their opponents will long continue to put up a fight. Spammers going out of business presents the anti-spam market with a threat. So there could be some nervousness over lone-crusader Nigel Featherston's success this week.

    Featherston sued two prominent spammers, Charles Childs and Linda Lightfoot, also known as Linda Beasley, after he received thousands of angry e-mails in reply to spam sent by Childs and Lightfoot using Featherston's e-mail address as the purported sender.

    The judge this week awarded Featherston $250,000 when Childs and Lightfoot did not turn up to answer the charge. According to the Seattle Times, it is unlikely that he will get the money anytime soon – he has to find the defendants first.

    Another spam-related legal action hit the headlines this week, as marketing association filed a notice of voluntary dismissal over a legal action it had filed against anti-spam activists to prevent them publishing lists of the IP addresses of purported spammers.

    According to Wired, the activists, including Spamhaus and SPEWS, have to consent to the notice before it can take effect, and they are unwilling to do this until agrees to pay their legal costs. Accordingly, the case is ongoing.

    Finally China, seen by many as a safe haven for spammers, has taken action to block servers that were identified as forwarding a huge volume of spam. They will no longer forward e-mail.

    According to ZDNet, Ren Jingiang, an official with the Chinese Internet Society of China, told the official state news agency, "This has been the first large-scale spammer blockade launched by the Chinese internet industry”.

    More forms of spamming by shanky webmasters...
    John Zuccarini, a journeyman of cybersquatting disputes, this week became the first person charged under America's new Truth in Domain Names law. If convicted, on charges of using misleading web addresses to lure children to porn sites, he faces up to four years in jail.

    Zuccarini is no stranger to domain name disputes, having lost actions to actor Kevin Spacey and companies including FAO Schwarz, Alta Vista and others. In October 2001, the Federal Trade Commission took court action over his usual practice of registering internet domain names that were misspellings of legitimate domain names or brands – known as typosquatting. For example, he registered 41 variations on the name of pop star Britney Spears. Surfers who looked for a site but misspelled its web address were taken to his sites.

    The most likely candidates to misspell addresses are, inevitably, children. Zuccarini had at one stage over 5,500 domain names registered, including, to use examples from the latest complaint, teltubbies and bobthebiulder.

    Once in a Zuccarini site, users were bombarded with a flurry of pop-up windows displaying ads for goods and services ranging from internet gambling to porn. In some cases, the legitimate web site the consumer was attempting to access also was launched, so consumers thought the hailstorm of ads to which they were being exposed was from a legitimate web site.


    First UK ruling under new rules on e-mail marketing

    A landmark decision published today confirms that you need to check for explicit consent before using a marketing list for an e-mail campaign, even if you believe in good faith that the list comprises only those who opted to receive marketing.

    That is the view of the UK's Advertising Standards Authority, which today published its first public decision based on new requirements for consent before marketing by e-mail. It clarified another important point: what is necessary to identify a marketing communication as such.

    Southampton seminar provider The Training Guild lost a key part of its case before the ASA over a recent e-mail campaign. It sent messages headed "Business Seminars – Telesales & Selling Skills Made Easy" which, when opened, promoted "a selling sales course for non-aggressive people". One recipient complained.

    This was not a court case, and no laws were referred to. However, marketers in the UK are obliged to follow what is known as the CAP Code – and the complaint was made under two new provisions of the Code, introduced in March this year.

    The complaint was, firstly, that the e-mail did not make clear in its subject field that it was a marketing communication; and secondly that The Training Guild did not get explicit consent to send e-mail to the complainant.

    The CAP Code is a set of rules produced by the UK’s Committee of Advertising Practice which are administered by the ASA, governing the content of UK non-broadcast marketing communications. Although lacking the force of legislation, the Code should be followed by all businesses and there are penalties available for non-compliance (see the OUT-LAW story in the link below for details).
    UK advertising rules change today with crackdown on spam
    The Code states that marketers, "should ensure that marketing communications are designed and presented in such a way that it is clear that they are marketing communications. Unsolicited e-mail marketing communications should be clearly identifiable as marketing communications without the need to open them."

    This echoes a legal requirement introduced by the E-commerce Regulations of 2002. However, there has been little or no guidance under either the CAP Code or the E-commerce Regulations on how to identify marketing communications as such. ......
    The most controversial addition to the CAP Code in March 2003 was that "the explicit consent of consumers is required" before "marketing by e-mail or SMS text transmission, save that marketers may market their similar products to their existing customers without explicit consent so long as an opportunity to object to further such marketing is given on each occasion."

    Great read on this article which will impact e-mail marketing.

    Mike & Charlie ...

    If they won't adopt and feed a bird ..flip them one! BBQ some Gator and remember to flush WhenU..

  4. #4
    ABW Founder Haiko de Poel, Jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    New York

    It's (C) infringement to post the entire article, please refrain from such in the future - I've been getting a few complaints. I'll edit your post so it isn't infringing.

    <font size="2" face="Verdana">Haiko

    The secret of success is constancy of purpose. ~ Disraeli

  5. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. 27 Clients from H*ll
    By JoyUnltd in forum Daily Chuckle
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 27th, 2014, 07:05 AM
  2. SpamArrest Now Used by AM Navigator
    By Geno Prussakov in forum AM Navigator
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2007, 03:00 PM
  3. SpamArrest
    By iktorn in forum Spam
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 8th, 2005, 05:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts