Earlier this week I had a confrontation with the folks at 
SpamCop myself. One of my associates had placed a free ad
in a newsletter that she had just subscribed to. For that
effort, she got nailed by a SpamCop member.

The man was frustrated because he was having problems 
unsubscribing himself from a newsletter, so he filed a 
complaint against everyone who was listed in the body of
the message, and not just against the list owner. It was
his anger and ignorance that fueled this nasty little
affair. 

My associate is in a very small town in Canada that has
only one isp. The upline provider of the local isp is
demanding her head for the accusation --- which has since
been dropped by the accuser with its aim against my 
associate. Even in dropping his claim against my 
associate, he insisted that she was somehow still
reponsible.

Because I was unable to turn up a company contact email
address, I signed up to their discussion list looking
for some kind of resolution.

Many members had knee jerk reactions to my questioning
their system. My major complaint was that for someone
to file against anyone simply because their ad was in an
ezine was improper. Many jumped on me in the discussion
and I held my own quite well. I may have even pulled a
few off of their pedestals. 

When one of the list administrators spoke up, everyone
climbed off of my back, and backed away from their 
earlier positions. I found that the SpamCop group was
generally fair providing an avenue of recourse against
false accusations.

In all, I received three open apologies from members
of the group.

Yet, in all of this, I continued to watch their chats
back and forth. Many of them put email addresses in 
circulation just so that they can torment others with 
spam accusations. 

At one point, I was convinced that of all of the Spam
organizations I had come against that Spam Cop was among
the less zealot and least dangerous. 

Then about 24 hours after everything died down, an email
came that changed my mind once again. "Jerry P" had to 
put in his two cents. I let it pass without comment because
this guy seems an extremist, and I have several properties
at risk if I catch his whim. His message is pasted below.
It might just scare you too.
 

In conclusion, SpamCop does provide an avenue for exit for
the falsely accused, and a method for the accused to speak
in their own defense. That is much more than I can say 
about most spam groups. 

Their active group members seem to consist of a combination
of moderates who are chasing real spammers, and zealots
who are chasing anyone who uses email in a commercial
enterprise.

While at one point in my conversations with them, I thought
I might have a lot of good to say about their group, I cannot
say the same now. "Jerry P" sealed my opposition to them.

You said two things in your note that were right on the mark:

"But if you are going to be making software available to the 
general, untrained public, you must consider being more 
responsible in its application and use."

--and--

"It is time for an Internal Affairs investigation into the 
corrupt and ego-driven powers of these unscrupulous e-cops.
It's time to arrest them."

Thank you for taking the fight to the streets.
 
 

Bill Platt  

------------------------------------------------------------------

--__--__--

Message: 12
From: "Jerry P" <xxx@xxxxx.com>
Subject: Re: [SpamCop-List] Spam Distinctions
Organization: SpamCop
 

"Bill Platt" was quoted:

> I do applaud your efforts to capture the
> real spammers, but the innocent are being captured in the
> cross-fire.

They should stay home.

>
> You folks are in a position of power. ISP's are scared to
> death of you and will do anything to prevent their networks
> from being compromised by your activities. They are so scared
> of you that they are willing to crucify the innocent based on
> an accusation that has no merit.

It's nice you understand.
 

>
> So, here we are left with a list owner running a single opt-in
> list who runs free ads for their subscribers, and a subscriber
> that does not remember opting-in. The result, a spam accusation
> causing a subscriber who posted a free ad to an ezine to lose
> their email account.

Or we have a spammer who lost their account. Either way, it is
far better for thousands of innocents to burn in Hell than one
spammer prevail.

>
> In real-world America, someone is innocent until proven guilty.
> On the Internet, someone is guilty even if proven innocent.
> What does this say about justice and fair-play by participants
> on the Internet?

Truth, Justice, and the American Way - or lack thereof - is
irrelevant. Spammers must believe there are no loopholes, no grey
areas, that the righteous will be sacrificed (in vast numbers if
need be) in order to expunge the evildoers. "I used an opt-in 
list" and "The Devil made me do it" will not be accepted as free 
passes.

>
>
> If someone has opted-in to an ezine, should they be permitted
> to file spam accusations against the publisher, even when clear
> instructions are given for opting-out?

Yes.

>
> While I do understand that spammers place their real address
> inside of the email and a bogus address in the From line, does
> not mean that any email with an email address in the body
> should merit that the email address in the body is guilty of
> spam. Should your software treat the content of an ezine as
> spam?

Sure.

>
> Wouldn't it make more sense for folks to understand what
> constitutes spam or uce before they run around making
> accusations against the innocent?

No. Spam, like the one true faith, is in the eye of the beholder.
Again, if it looks like a bird, it might be a duck. Better the
condor dies than risk a quack.

>
> Suggestion. Make them take an online class teaching the
> differences between spam and non-spam and make certain they
> understand the distinction before placing the tools in their
> hands to maim, injure and kill others reputations and accounts.

SpamCop users are literate, intelligent, virtually all college
educated, well-versed in spam, and are more computer-savy than
99% of the world's population.  It is presumptious and arrogant 
in the extreme to imply they need a Learning Annex class to 
detect spam.

>
> While for the most part, my question is of a rhetorical nature,
> I would still be interested if you feel that opt-in lists
> should be prosecuted as spam.

Yes. Further, no 'prosecution' is necessary; they stand condemed
by their own mouths and we should proceed directly to the gallows -
rhetorically speaking, of course.