Here Come the Mainsleazers! April, 2004.

   The "Here Come the Mainsleazers News Roundup"

Click here for Prior Page of Here Come the Mainsleazers News.

Email marketer sues anti-spam group Spamcop     April 30, 2004.     Scott Richter, President of Email marketing firm OptinRealBig.com, has filed suit against Ironport, which runs the anti-spam website Spamcop. According to Richter, Spamcop's initiatives have damaged the reputation of his company and forces ISPs to terminate contractual agreements with OptinRealBig.com and its upstream providers.     If you receive spam, it's likely you receive emails from Scott Richter, whose email marketing firm OptinRealBig.com claims to be one of the nation's fastest growing email marketing firms. Still, Richter insists that he is doing nothing wrong. To prove his point, he is not just defending himself against current lawsuits against him. He now has files suit against Spamcop, one of the most visible anti-spam groups out there.          Tom's Hardware Guide. April 30, 2004.          Slashdot. April 30, 2004.     [Ed. Note: This is the same Scotty Richter being sued by NY AG Eliot Spritzer and Microsoft for his spam operations. If you read Richter's publicity for his spam operations, you will find him claiming he has access to 100 million legitimiate addresses in the United States. Now if you do some simple math, that means there is a good 40% chance you opted in to his spam. Of course this is ludicrous. Richter's history as one of the most prolific spammers on the planet is so well documented one has to wonder if his lawyer that filed this case missed class the day they discussed the concept of discovery. In the searches of groups.google.com archives of net abuse discussions and reports below, it is interesting to not that the third, searching for "Snotty Scotty", turns the most hits. Read and judge for yourself whether Scotty Richter has earned his reputation as an unrepentant spammer.]      The following searches the groups.google.com archives of postings to the news.admin.net-abuse.* hiearchy for posts about Scotty Richter:          Search for Scotty Richter      The following searches the groups.google.com archives of postings to the news.admin.net-abuse.* hiearchy for posts about Scott Richter:          Search for Scot Richter      The following searches the groups.google.com archives of postings to the news.admin.net-abuse.* hiearchy for posts about Snotty Scotty:          Search for Snotty Scotty

The Boston Globe. April 26, 2004.     Brian Haberstroh is not a spammer. Take his word for it.     After all, Haberstroh's company, Sendmails Corp. of Manchester, N.H., doesn't flood electronic mailboxes. Instead, Sendmails gets other people to do it.          If it looks -- and annoys -- like spam     [Ed. Note: Hiawatha Bray, the author of this piece, has turned up in anti-spam groups looking for info and advice. His articles have not always been well received. But he seems to have gottn the point on this one. Try the link below and read about Haberstroh. By the way, one wonders why the company that owns this mark, one would presume, see sendmail.com, isn't a little bent out of shape over this name.]      The following searches the groups.google.com archives of postings to the news.admin.net-abuse.* hiearchy for posts about Haberstroh:          Searched Groups for Haberstroh group:news.admin.net-abuse.*. in news.admin.net-abuse.*

With spam accounting for about two-thirds of all email traffic, the number of jurisdictions enacting anti-spam laws is proliferating almost as fast as spam itself. Yet according to White & Case's Survey of Global Privacy Law, discrepancies in the anti-spam provisions being enacted around the world may harm cross-border marketing by legitimate businesses.          White & Case Survey Shows Cross-Border Marketing Efforts at Risk From Spam Laws     [Ed. Note: I fail to see the logic. If you cn't do business without spamming, then don't do business.]

Direct Marketing News. April 23, 2004.     If e-mail is part of your marketing mix, you’ve likely spent time this year sorting through the CAN-SPAM Act. Penalties range up to $2 million, and the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general and Internet service providers are eager to bring actions. And in September, the FTC may recommend that e-mail vigilantes who report spammers be rewarded with a cash “bounty.”     Applicability. CAN-SPAM applies to all commercial e-mails, not just those that are unsolicited. There is no exception for pre-existing business relationships, common under state laws. But if your e-mails are “transactional or relationship” in nature, compliance with many CAN-SPAM requirements is not necessary. This applies to e-mails that, for example, are sent to complete the sale of goods. The law does not prohibit inclusion of upsell or cross-sell materials as long as the main purpose of the e-mail is a “transaction.”          CAN-SPAM Compliance: Practice Makes Perfect     [Ed. Note: In regard to this articles play with the language of CAN-SAPM Act and how basically to keep on spamming under its languague, I would make a remark about weasels, but I would not want to insult the species.]

Kodak Reported to Have Joined the Mainsleazers     Reported in nanae, anti-spam newsgroup. April 20, 2004.     A poster to news.admin.net-abuse.email reports in detail being spammed by Kodak and their response to his complaint.     It appears Kodak has gone over to the dark side of mainsleaze spam.          Original post from news.admin.net-abuse.email.

Direct Marketing News. April 14, 2004.     Business-to-business e-mail lists continue to rise in price while consumer lists dropped slightly, according to an index released yesterday by Worldata, Boca Raton, FL.     The Worldata Spring 2004 List Price Index covers April 2003 to April 2004. It is grouped into list categories and compares costs per thousand names for the 12-month period.     The index shows permission-based BTB e-mail lists as the costliest with an average base of $283/M in April 2004, up $5 from the $278/M average in April 2003. Previous averages were $279/M in April 2002, $268/M in April 2001 and $259/M in April 2000. Worldata said the change reflects the wide responsiveness of these files and predicted further growth in the BTB list market.     But permission-based business-to-consumer e-mail lists had an average price of $170/M in April 2004, down $2 from an average of $172/M in April 2003. Previous averages were $195/M in April 2002, $207/M in April 2001 and $204/M in April 2000. The dip in price for BTC lists is at least partly attributable to the CAN-SPAM Act, according to Worldata.          Worldata Index: BTB E-Mail List Prices Rise, BTC Slips     [Ed Note: Any guesses on how many addresses in the millions of addresses being sold back and forth as described in this article actually signed up or opted-in or asked to receive email from this fine marketers?]

Direct Marketing News. April 14, 2004.     Three more interactive industry groups joined the opposition to the proposed creation of a do-not-e-mail list, saying it would not reduce spam but would hurt legitimate businesses.     The Interactive Advertising Bureau, E-mail Service Provider Coalition and TRUSTe released a study of the proposal yesterday. It found that creating a do-not-e-mail registry, as called for under the CAN-SPAM Act, would be a costly exercise in futility, sowing consumer confusion and burdening small businesses.          Online Industry Groups Oppose E-Mail Registry     [Ed. Note: So, the same marketdroids who went to court to try and stop the telephone do-not-call registry are opposed to users also protecting their email addresses. I am shocked, amazed, and surprised. (Actually, the idea of a central email registry is ludicrous on the face of it for other reasons, but not the reasons the marketdroids oppose the idea.)]

marketingsherpa.com. April 8, 2004.     One of the biggest concerns we hear from marketers about do-not-email (DNE) lists is how to secure them -- not just from random hackers but from rogue affiliates, as well as staffers at a third-party suppression service.          How to Use a Do Not Email List for Protection from CAN-SPAM Lawsuits - Part II: Vendors Profiled     [Ed. Note: If there is a prize for the "Do Not Get It" marketers, here is a candidate. This article goes on and on about doing business with third parties who provide address supression services. If you as a business are only sending email to your customers or others who signed up for it, i.e. subscribed or opted in, then what possible use do you have or need for an "email suppression list". But oh, I forgot. The "You CAN-SPAM Act" actually implicitly makes it OK for businesses to spam the living hell out of you, as long as the do it honestly and offer an honest "remove" option.]

webpronews.com. April 5, 2004.     Is your organization in compliance with the recently passed CAN-SPAM anti-spam legislation? Because of the short-time frame between President Bush signing the legislation and the new law taking effect, many companies have either overlooked or misunderstood certain aspects of the law.     For example, in a mid-January analysis of more than 100 opt-in email messages from companies across multiple industries, our company discovered that 44 percent of the emails were not in compliance with one of the simplest requirements of the law. These emails did not include a postal mailing address somewhere in the body of the message.     The outcome of all of this activity was that customers awoke from a privacy and permission sleep in 2003. Whether you believe consumers are actually in significantly greater control over their personal information and marketing messages they receive is irrelevant. Consumers believe they are – and will punish those organizations that don’t understand and respect this reality.          CAN-SPAM And Beyond: Email Marketing In An Era Of Customer Control     [Ed. Note: You know, one could wax really sarcastic over the third paragraph from the article quoted above. How dare we uppity consumers even dream of waking up and trying to even imagine we had a single shred of privacy and protection for our personal data any more? After all, didn't Larry Ellison of Oracle pronounce that in this new age of technology "Privacy is dead. Get over it." Silly consumers. Note that although I have listed this article here because of the marketdroid slant, it does cover provisions of the law, so I list it on the page with pointers to information on the "You CAN SPAM Act", also.]

dmnews.com. April 2, 2004.     The proposed federal do-not-e-mail registry would cost the commercial e-mail industry as much as $5.8 billion, according to a study released March 31 by the Direct Marketing Association.     The cost estimates were included in comments the DMA submitted to the Federal Trade Commission, which in March requested comment on the do-not-e-mail registry proposed as part of the CAN-SPAM Act. The FTC must submit a plan to Congress for its implementation, along with potential drawbacks and costs, by June 16.          DMA: Do-Not-E-Mail Registry Would Cost Industry $5.8B     [Ed. Note: Wait a minute. Isn't there something familiar about outrageous claims like this? Oh, yes, now I remember. The Federally mandated "Do Not Call" list. Wasn't that supposed to bring western civilization to an end, also? DMA. What can I say. Just mind you a personal opinion, but I think the DMA represents the scummiest element in our society, mindless, unethical, sleazy marketing at its worst. Just an personal opinion, mind you.]

mediainfo.com. April 2, 2004.     The Association of National Advertisers has urged the Federal Trade Commission to recommend against the adoption of a do-not-e-mail list in an upcoming report to Congress.          Group Opposes Do-Not-E-Mail Registry     [Ed. Note: These are the same people who violently through court appeals fought implementation of the "Do Not Call" telephone registry. Why does anyone take anything these people say seriously anymore?]