how to deal with spam for good?

[Bart Silverstrim]

On Mar 12, 2005, at 4:44 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 2005, at 1:37 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>>>> [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Kirk
>>>> Strauser Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:42 AM
>>>> To: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>>>> Subject: Re: how to deal with spam for good?
>>>>
>>>
>>>> You know, I'm no longer sure that's true.  I think that spam will
>>>> stick around as long as stupid business owners continue to get
>>>> suckered into thinking that it's a legitimate means of marketing.
>>>> One of my associate's customers (a brick and mortar store) was
>>>> being sweet-talked by a spammer into sending a series of
>>>> broadcasts.  In this situation, the spammer would profit off the
>>>> ignorance of that *business owner*.  Even if 100% of the messages
>>>> were blocked, he'd still get his pay for performing the "service".
>>>
>>> Didn't anyone tell your associate's customers that spamming is now
>>> a felony?  And, even if they hire a spammer to do it for them, the
>>> law still prosecutes them for the spamming?
>>
>> Add some teeth to that law and some lawyers who are willing to pursue
>> this in volume, and you'd be on to something.  As it stands, it's like
>> prosecuting jaywalkers.  Who bothers?
>>
>
> http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2004/11/03/ 
> ap1631798.html%E2%80%9D%20
> target=
>
> (although while the judge did set aside the verdict for DeGroot,  
> Jayne's
> appeal of his conviction went nowhere)
>
> Keep in mind these are the very first convictions on this.  Once the
> appeals process is exhausted then we will have set some precident,  
> which
> is vitally important for these to go forward on a large scale.
>
>> Even junk faxer's get away with that kind of crap despite the fines
>> (happened to catch Tom Martino on the radio yesterday talking about
>> it...)
>>
>
> That is only because these days most people handling received faxes for
> companies are lazy and dumb "administrative assistants" who don't even
> know
> it's illegal or who to complain to.

Actually, the problem (if the two really are similar, junk faxers and  
spammers and laws against them as they are forming) is that lawyers  
don't WANT the hassle because the payout is so little compared to the  
time they put into the case.  It's just not worth it.

One of the guys Tom Martino had on the radio DID sue a junk faxer.  Got  
a lawyer, went to court, won.  The law fines something like (from  
memory here) $500 per fax.  He ended up getting something like forty or  
fifty bucks after the case was done, after fees.  The lawyer he hired  
asked that he find someone else...it was too much paperwork and  
footwork for the profit to be made.

Tom was discussing a class action lawsuit against some junk faxers.   
People submitting evidence and names were getting something like $25  
for a winning case out of the lawsuit (again, I'm recalling this from  
memory, so you may have to research this if you're interested in more  
info).

Essentially yes, there are laws against this sort of thing but it is  
expensive to prosecute and the reward is so meager compared to the  
effort.  On top of that, *good luck collecting from Spammers!!*   
Especially scuzz that hide behind zombie systems and big pipes in Asia.

While I won't discount laziness and stupidity as contributing factors  
to this continuing, the people acting as crimefighters face a long and  
hard uphill battle to make it worth the time invested.  It may be more  
worthwhile to start finding people who respond to spam and threaten  
them with lawsuits so big that they'd have to be bankrupted by summary  
judgment in order to keep them from continuing to finance the spam  
kings...then their revenue will stop and then spam will stop.