re: anti-spam strategies

boogie woogie (extrogod@hotmail.com)
Thu, 01 Oct 1998 08:28:34 PDT

Michael Lorrey writes:

[I have contacted juno's 'postmaster' several times in response, but
always get canned automated responses, and there seems to be no actions being taken to limit spammers from using juno servers.]

You are wasting you time going after Juno. Huge software firms can't litigate them to stop hackers from using their service to pirate software. How do you think you are going to make Juno even blink?

[In response to this, I've started taking two strategies which I suggest
others on the list do as well in hopes of finally getting some sort of respose to remedy the situation.]

I've got a better strategy. Make the list a closed list. They can still retrieve email addresses from the archives but that is cumbersome. They will go back to USENET fishing.

[They are based on the idea that since juno is doing nothing to prevent
spammers from using accounts with them for spamming, that juno is in collusion with spammers who engage in theft of electronic services (i.e. wasting my time and bandwidth). Considering the volume of this theft, Juno can fall under the RICO Act statutes.]

They are also based on the (wrong) idea that Juno cares. Juno has been litigated before on this. They don't care. Prosecutors can't construct cases that stand up in court. Like I said before, software firms can't even stop the free use of Juno's service.

[Strategy 1: Charge fees: As some on the list may know, I charge a
$250.00 fee for processing unsolicited commercial email messages. Every time I receive a spam which uses a juno account in the body of the message as a response email address, I send a bill to juno's postmaster for $250.00. Their account balance is now $1500.00. I've given them three days to refuse charges on each instance, and 30
days to pay the charges, and will impose a 18.5% finance charge for balances due over 30 days.]

This absurd idea is based on supposed enforcement of communication laws that are just not enforced. Why charge them $250 when the law allows for $500? Hell, why not just charge them a cool million for every bit you receive? Then you can include those hefty billion dollar receivables on your books. Factor them off to a bank who I'm sure will give you at least a penny for them.

[Strategy 2: I warn juno in each message that they are in violation of
RICO Act statues by colluding with perpetrators of theft of electronic services. Apparently, there are means of civil redress under the RICO Act, where a person or persons can sue violators of the RICO Act. I am currently researching what it would take to file a class action lawsuit against juno.com on these grounds. Anyone here is welcome to become in volved in this effort. If you are interested in getting in on this lawsuit, respond to me at: rico-lawsuit@lorrey.com. Please provide a zip file with text copies of all spam messages you have received related to juno.com to add to the evidence files.]

You shouldn't waste people's time with these litigation pipedreams. You aren't going to find an attorney that will waste his time prosecuting an ISP under the RICO statutes! Unless you pay them a hefty nonrefundable retainer. Get a good spam filter and have a nice day.

Boog


Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com