More evidence that Spamcop-listed Truthout is indeed spamming (Billy Pitt/Marc Ash Scandal)

Note that no bill in the U.S. Congress that I'm aware of (and I believe I've read them all) would regulate nonprofit or political spam.

Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Annalee Newitz <xxxx@xxx.com>
Subject: Re: FC: Spamcop blacklists truthout.org (for a good reason?)

Hi Declan. Interestingly, I too was subscribed totruthout without any notification and without myconsent. I got myself unsubbed, and have recently beenre-subscribed (also without consent). Their "grassroots" tactics would appear to be spammer-esque. I'm sure they've farmed my e-mail addy from sites for various progressive publications.

Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Charles Oriez <xxxxx@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: FC: Spamcop blacklists truthout.org (for a good reason?)

The irony of someone threatening to sue spamcop because spamcop has engaged in free speech, and then trying to cloak themselves in the banner of the first amendment to protect their own speech, is interesting. I believe the operative word is hypocritical.

I can't afford to trade packets with any system whose operators view litigation as the solution to network outages. Consider 69.20.9.116 blocked immediately on every system under my control. I'll also be posting to nanae and spam-l where others may choose to exercise their free speech rights to say nasty things about truthout in their deny tables as well.

I've taken the liberty of altering their statement below to more accurately reflect their true position.

> First Amendment advocates in the noncommercial sector such as
> Truthout or Spamcop
> should not have their speech deterred in any way, except by threats
> of litigation from us when we disagree with it.

Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:21:23 +0530
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh@xxxx.net>
Organization: -ENOENT
Subject: Re: FC: Spamcop blacklists truthout.org (for a good reason?)

>That's mostly because, despite never signing up for truthout's newsletter, >I get it regularly.

So, if as the lawyer's note below says, yahoo was blocking truthout - it is quite likely that, just like Ben got it without subscribing to it, other accounts (such as yahoo spamtraps) might have got it as well. Or was truthout's problem that their mails were being routed to yahoo's bulkmail folder? Yahoo does both bulkmail folder filing and bouncing of inbound mail that its filters detect as spam, I believe.

As far as I know, Yahoo doesn't filter using spamcop - but I'm speaking as a longtime yahoo user, not as an admin at yahoo.

> > Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t
> > William M. Simpich
> > Attorney at Law
> > So how does Truthout come to be blacklisted?. An individual with a
>political axe to grind can easily manipulate a Reader-based SPAM rating
>system. Clearly, Truthout has been targeted in this manner. As Ray
>Everett-Church, the counsel for Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial
>Email, stated in the May 14 Washington Post, some blacklists indeed become
>``little more than tools for people's personal vendettas."

Was this quote from Ray Everett Church in the context of truthout being blocked? Or was he talking about other blocklists, or even other incidents involving spamcop, so that this quote could be misused to imply that someone at Spamcop, or a spamcop user, has a personal vendetta against truthout?

> Both SpamCop and Yahoo rely on the highly flawed reader-based SPAM rating
>system. In fact, on SpamCop's website, it discusses the status of the

Spamcop - perhaps. Yahoo? They rely on a lot of other things as well. Have they said specifically that they blocked truthout based on user complaints?

>SpamCop blocking list. It states that it ``should not be used in a
>production environment where legitimate e-mail must be delivered.'' Then
>it admits that it ``err(s) on the side of blocking mail...there is no
>warranty associated with using this system. It is provided as is.''
>(Emphasis in original)

So, maybe you ought to go ask ISPs / networks that filtered your mail because of a spamcop listing?

> >
> > We have informed SpamCop that it is ``inviting a defamation suit by using
>such tactics against a commercial e-mailer. By engaging in such a tactic
>with a noncommercial organization such as Truthout, you are virtually
>guaranteeing a victory.''
> >

Spam is defined as unsolicited bulk email. Did all the recipients of the truthout newsletter sign up for it, and confirmed that they signed up? Then you can know for sure that they are interested in your newsletter.

If not? Well, your list gets polluted with fake addresses, or addresses of people who haven't signed up at all ... a grassroots organization with a badly mismanaged mailing list stands a really good chance of becoming astroturf.

> > First Amendment advocates in the noncommercial sector such as Truthout
>should not have their speech deterred in any way. While everyone hates the
>spammers, neither SpamCop, Yahoo or anyone else should be deciding what
>people in the United States are allowed to read.

Did spamcop, or yahoo, or anybody else block truthout's website, or soemthing? Did they block cases where other people, who may have actually subscribed to truthout, forwarded these newsletters to their friends?

Or did they refile your mail into a bulkmail folder, from where your subscribers could just select "this is not spam" to move it back to their inbox? Note the word "bulk mail" there. _Any_ bulk mail, for the sole reason that it is sent in bulk, to a large number of yahoo users, can get filed to that folder.

As for the first amendment, it says that "Congress shall make no law ...." - as far as I know it doesn't say "Spamcop shall make no law" or "Yahoo shall make no law".

Spam is not about content - "save the children" and "grassroots organization" and "first amendment rights" can be sent out in unsolicited bulk email (aka spam) just as well as nigerian money scams and promises to enlarge body parts.

So ... by this logic, if a First Amendment advocate decides to start posting large posters on all my windows, I should have no recourse. I think these people don't understand the principles of the First Amendment as well as I thought.

From: "Dave Phelps" <xxxx@xxxx.com>
Subject: Re: Spamcop blacklists truthout.org (for a good reason?)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:31:27 -0500

It should be noted that SpamCop does not decide what anyone is allowed to read, so any first amendment argument is moot. No one is required to use SpamCop.

I choose not to read anything blocked by SpamCop. I accept the fact that SpamCop errs on the side of caution, and I override the SpamCop results when desired.

With regard to defamation, SpamCop is the wrong target. SpamCop is just the messenger. Your defamation target should be the person that you claim has filed the false reports with the SpamCop system.

Similar to many of our more enterprising members of the public, it appears that you are simply going after the "deep pockets." Instead of going after the person that truly defamed your organization (the person that filed the reports), you are going after SpamCop. In this case, the "deep pockets" contain publicity rather than money.

Rather than complain, why not take this opportunity to review your e-list procedures? You might want to review your email acquisition methods, and be sure to regularly advise list members how to unsubscribe (some lists have this at the bottom of each message). You may also want to put a blurb in one of your emails (since SpamCop isn't blocking you at the moment) advising your list members not to submit your emails to SpamCop in an attempt to unsubscribe, but to follow the unsubscribe procedure.

Subject: Re: FC: Spamcop blacklists truthout.org (for a good reason?)
From: Valdis Kletnieks

> From: "t r u t h o u t"
> To: <xxxx@xxxxx.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 1:46 AM
> Subject: A Letter from TO Legal Counsel William M. Simpich

> > We have informed SpamCop that it is ``inviting a defamation suit by using
> such tactics against a commercial e-mailer. By engaging in such a tactic
> with a noncommercial organization such as Truthout, you are virtually
> guaranteeing a victory.''

Actually, a victory is nowhere near guaranteed, given that Paul Vixie and friends over at MAPS don't lose THEIR legal battles too often, and they're more out on a legal limb than SpamCop is. MAPS is directly adding stuff to their databases by hand, whereas SpamCop is merely reporting (essentially) the automated results of a poll. It's hard to make a defamation case against SpamCop if they are truthfully saying "8 out of 10 people that sent us information thought this was spam". (It becomes a bit easier if you can show that SpamCop is intentionally fudging the stats).

However, the biggest legal hurdle to cover is that neither MAPS nor SpamCop actually block any e-mail. They provide an *opinion* on something, and some OTHER site is taking action based on that opinion. The guys at TruthOut may have a case against the site actually blocking the mail (Yahoo or whoever), and they may have a case against whoever engaged in ballot-box-stuffing to rig a SpamCop rating, but I doubt they have a case against SpamCop itself unless they can clearly show malicious tampering of the numbers by SpamCop staff....

From: Ed Allen Smith <xxxx@xxxxx.rutgers.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:29:09 -0400
Subject: Re: FC: Spamcop blacklists truthout.org (for a good reason?)

BTW, spamcop is no longer sending information to that trademark/copyright-violation-hunting company, even optionally, from what I can see from my own reporting.

As well as the various disclaimers cited below, Spamcop also specifically states that the blacklist should be used only for diverting email into an alternative folder, not for refusing email - diverting to a different folder, not refusing email, is what _Spamcop_ uses it for! However, given the below evidence (both that they're sending unsolicited mail - commercial/noncommercial makes no difference - and that they're making legal threats, or rather poor-mouthing themselves and claiming they _would_ be making such legal threats if they weren't a poor left-wing organization), refusing email entirely from them, with an option for people like Ben who wish to continue receiving it for their addresses entirely to be blocked, would appear to be justified.

------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------

The original thread from yesterday can be read here.

Seems the lefies have made fools of themselves yet again!

Remember that a donation doesn't have to be large to be significant.
There are tens of thousands of FReepers. If everyone would donate just $1.00 a month, we would never have to have another of these FReepathons.
Are you doing your share?

Donate Here By Secure Server

3 posted on 07/15/2003 7:06:15 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)

Quoting from the article:
Note that no bill in the U.S. Congress that I'm aware of (and I believe I've read them all) would regulate nonprofit or political spam.

Even if there was such a bill, it would have no legal weight until it was signed into law.

I used to beat spammers over the head with that inconvenient fact whenever they quoted the Murkowski bill in their spamming. (Stupid throwbacks of evolution...*spit*)

-Jay

5 posted on 07/15/2003 7:32:18 PM PDT by Jay D. Dyson (Threaten me? That's life. Threaten my loved ones? That's death.)

7 posted on 07/16/2003 6:41:30 AM PDT by Tamzee (Peace is the prerogative of the victorious, not the vanquished.... Churchill)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.