If you didn’t already know it, FUSSP stands for “Final and Ultimate Solution to the Spam Problem”. And now Mark Mumma, made famous in the Mummagraphics v. Omega World Travel, Inc. case, has reinvented the wheel with his new website: http://optout1.com/.
That’s right, kiddies, it’s a global, domain-wide opt out site! And yes, this really is Mark Mumma. The domain is done through his “webguy.com” site. Plus, the domain registration uses (webguydns@gmail.com) for the POC, despite the “proxy registration” designator. He also has a “terms” page which is, as of this writing, 404 compliant.
And apparently he’s contacting some senders and asking them to download his list once a month. For what reason? I thought we had been down this road before with such illuminaries as Wallace and Rines’IEMMC and Rodney Joffe’s SafeEPS. Rodney at least had credibility on both sides of the fence.
Dude, we’ve been there and done that. It failed then. It will fail now. And really, man, once a month? That’s a joke, right?
[UPDATE: The "terms" page is no longer 404 compliant but instead contains a rant against this post. I encourage you to go read Mr. Mumma's take on things. About the only thing I'll cop to is not looking at the date when I checked whois. It's new enough that I hadn't heard of it before. That gets it marked as "new" in my book.]
New?
Wow, you must be on a really slow dial-up connection if you think this is ‘new’…. I refer you to the Internet Archive’s “WayBack machine”.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.optout1.com
So far Scott Richter and Brian Benenhaley, just to name a couple, are honoring the requests of OptOut1 members and, if that’s all we accomplish, then so much the better.
The trick is to NOT give up regardless of the success or failure of any one method to reduce spam.
WebGuy
Scott Richter would wash his lists against dogfood if he thought it would magically reduce complaints.
Oh! So you’re the guy who’s helping hard core spammers like Scott Richter listwash?
Scott Richter. He’s a spammer, right? Used to advertise a product for a female body-part he was unable to pronounce on national television. Great guy.
Global domain-wide opt-out was unworkable when Rodney Joffe did it (as an experiment). The folks who will be interested are middle-of-the-road sleazeballs who will use the lists to keep spamming. Hard-core spammers will ignore them.
By the way, Mick, you neglected to mention the DMA’s attempt at an opt-out list. Was this because they refused to even discuss domain-level opt-out?
to: RealityChick
Snotty Scotty can use whatever methods to wash his list(s) as he likes as long as he includes OptOut1 members in his washing efforts.
REALITY: The domains listed on OptOutByDomain.com have not received emails from Richters properties or clients properties.
REAL Reality Check::
Less spam = Good. No?
–snip–
to: duhnis
The only help I’ve ever given ‘hard core spammes’is my small part in legalizing email server name forgery in the Cruise.scum -vs- WebGuy.net case. Read the pleadings to determine whether or not you think this is the outcome I was shooting for.
Inferring that I am an ally or proponent of any spammer just reveals your ignorance as to what I’m all about.
–snip–
To: Brian McNutt
Again, the idea is to reduce spam. With this concept I’ve been able to reduce spam to my domains. Even if the spam reduction is only minimal; Less = Less. Yes?
Am I missing something?
–snip–
to: MickeyC
The so-called “terms” pages was COMMENTED OUT in the HTML of OptOut1′s homepage. My question to you about the relevance of a commented link is simply:
Huh?
It never ceases to amuse me when people tell me how OptOut1 doesn’t or can’t work when I’ve enjoyed measurable results with it for nearly 4 years now. I don’t have any illusions that someday EVERY spammer will honor the list, but if ANY do that’s progress.
Progress = Good. Isn’t it?
No matter how little or how slowly progress comes about, progress in the reduction of the amount of spam I receive on a daily basis has been my goal in this endeavor since it’s inception in 2003. I’d hardly call OptOut1.com a ‘new’ thing that is ‘doomed to fail’.
As always, if someone has an actual ‘better idea’ on how to stop spam, rather than unfounded blanket ‘this is doomed to fail’ comments, I’m all ears.
WebGuy
Well, no, if you thought they were commented out, then you must be the world’s worst HTML scripter.
Oh, wait. I can see where you tried. Your site currently reads (down at the bottom of the homepage):
You forgot to open the tag first.
4 years and you have 2 users?
I think that speaks for itself.
Two users? Richter and Benenhaley are just two examples.
Most recently “[redacted pending verification]” has also come on board as have many others not listed on the site for privacy or whatever other paranoid reasons the emailers may have.
The point is, I’ve noticed measurable decrease in spam to the domains on the list versus those I own that are NOT on the list. Why is this so hard for a select few ‘so-called’anti-spammers to understand. Again, I ask, Less spam = GOOD? Yes?
Most recently? How recently? Is there someone we can verify this claim with? And, I’m assuming that you got permission from someone there to mention them by name (since you’re so concerned about your site’s users’privacy).
Until we can get that verification, I’m going to edit your comment to redact their name.
Your confusion is this magic list of yours is not about decreasing spam, it’s about decreasing YOUR spam.
It’s good for you, it’s neutral for the rest of the net. No one has a problem with that.
Really, it’s just another bit of ego wanking. Unfortunately, your last bit of ego wanking got you into trouble to the tune of millions of dollars in fines and resulted in a HORRIBLE bit of case law for those of us who care about spam in general, not just spam to our domains.
Would a recorded telephone call suffice?
Interesting, You don’t list others for privacy reasons, but did that company give their consent to being mentioned?
I’m really not quite sure how you expect a sender to use this list if you dont’make it easy for them, provide rsync, or something. But seriously, a flat text file which may or may not change from month to month? how is a sender to know which additions are new or not if they even decided to use this. doesn’t really seem like the answer to the spam problem.
I don’t know. Did you have permission to record from all parties? Do you have permission from all parties to release the recording?
You recorded a call and are willing to publish it without permission, but that’s the only company you’re going to mention for “privacy reasons”. It doesn’t pass the sniff test, Mark.
. o O {off to talk to [redacted pending verification] }
RealityChick…..
I do care about spam in general. I always have. I always will. I care about spam to my domains too, as do most private domain owners.
I clearly care about both. To suggest otherwise would do nothing more than prove you don’t know the first thing about me and my ‘alleged massive ego…’ (I’m a self-admitted LOSER in the war on spam and I am clearly aware that I’m a genuine DORK. Pondering how and why you think I have this ‘big ego’ gave me the hardest belly laugh I’ve had in months… THANKS FOR THAT! Its so funny, I’m still crying….)
Last time I checked this was America, or at least what’s left of it. As such, if you don’t want to add your domain(s) to OptOut1, then DON’T!
Not sure how you can blame me for the obvious inability of several federal judges to see, as well as agree, that CAN-SPAM was all about preventing header forgery, not facilitating it.
Congressional intent was clearly not followed in my case, how is that my fault? My attorneys Pete Wellborn and Kelly Wallace did their best to win this thing but ignorant judges got in the way. Sorry I didn’t have a crystal ball handy to see that one coming.
A very respected anti-spammer and friend of mine agrees that it was the court that ‘got it wrong’ not me.
See>> http://tinyurl.com/6lcpxx
I’m not saying I don’t make mistakes. I’ve made more than my fair share. I can’t and won’t, however, take responsibility for poor judging by supposedly intelligent and educted adults.
I don’t really give a rat’s ass about egos, mine or anyone else’s, I care about helping myself and other domain owners reduce spam to their inboxes. If my small yet measurable success in doing so offends your anti-spamming work ethic then my advice to you is to ‘Man Up’ and do something productive instead of bitching and whining about the efforts of others.
Grow up already!
What kind of true anti-spammer can’t see that progress = good? If you’re achieving progress in the war on spam, not matter how great or small, then I will be the first to wholeheartedly congratulate you, applaud you, and encourage you to do even more! How is tearing down the efforts of fellow spam haters productive to ANYTHING?
You’re either part of the solution or your part of the problem. Maybe you need to step off and decide where you really are on this subject.
MickC, I’m in Oklahoma. I can record and disclose any telephone conversations to which I am a party without obtaining permission from anyone. This has already been tried and tested in Federal Court. I prevailed on same.
To Interesting:
They didn’t tell me NOT to mention them. Most legit companies don’t mind being connected to OptOut1 as a willing party to our request for no email.
The list is very easy.
Besides, the definition of spam suggests that the sender somehow got my address on thier list WITHOUT my help. Just how much help should I provide for them to remove my name? They got my address ON their list without my help, they should be able to get it off just as easily.
Get a cheap list cleaner and sign up for automatic notifications that the list has changed. IF a name is dropped from the list for whatever reason it is open to being spammed again.
But, you see, you open yourself up to a lawsuit in Massachusetts, where that company is based. And the law on interstate recording between one and two party states is murky at best.
Furthermore, for my purposes, I require signed releases for recordings if you want to use them for verification.
It’s just my own way of not getting drawn into silly lawsuits.
But, but! Mickey! Mark is all about silly lawsuites! The sillier the better! The worse for people who want to stop spam the better!
OK might be a one party state, but I know that if you’re in a one party state and call CA (a 2 party state) CA law applies. Dunno about how it’s applied in other states, though.
MickC:
My telephone system announces the fact that the call will be recorded upon being transferred by my PBX. See for yourself:
866.511.3634
(Disposable # temporarily forwarded to my cell for your amusement…)
On top of the announcement on my phone system, It’s common knowledge that I record ALL of my spam related telephone calls. Any email marketer that I talk to can easily opt out of the recording by simply pressing the switchook button on his telephone.
I like to call it the ‘Opt Out’button.
You got me there Reality Chick.
How very silly of me to think that header forgery was actionable under the I-CAN-SPAM Act.
Looks like you score one there dude! Woo Hoo for you!!
I think everybody’s getting their panties in a wad because of the title of this post:
“Final and Ultimate Solution to the Spam Problem”
THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS. I have never touted the OptOut1 Network to be the Final or Ultimate Solution to anything.
OptOut1 is not the “end all – be all” solution to anything, nor was it designed to be.
OptOut1 is a small step in the right direction. It is my humble yet genuine effort at attempting to operate my business without the constant interruption of Cruise News or Viagra Offers or Cheap software.
Isn’t taking steps towards reducing spam, no matter how small, the thing to do? Who’s got the ‘ego’here? I admit I’m a LOSER in the war on spam. I’ve never claimed otherwise. I’ve also admitted OptOut1 isn’t perfect but it has acheived some measurable success in its first three years. This success is not forced up YOU and you don’t have to enjoy it with us. You’re perfectly within your right to remain a non-member of the OptOut1 Network and we encourage you to remain as such.
No, the reason we have our “panties” in a “bunch” is because you don’t seem very bright, and the best you can do to sway us otherwise is to call names of people who disagree with you.
There is a reason you got your ass handed to you in court, and you are demonstrating it to us presently.
Thanks for the display of …. yourself.
I am well aware of my lack of intelligence. I sadly expected justice from our courts. THAT WAS WRONG. I then expected justice from the appeals court.
That’s why the whole ‘ego’theory cracked me up so much. None of this is worth getting anyone’s panties in a snit.
SOMEHOW 100% of the two identifying pieces of info contained in the headers were false. That’s 2 for 2. How again is ‘100% false’, not the same as ‘materially false’?
If I gave a cop two forms of ID and neither were ‘my’real identity, but someone else’s, or worse yet, someone that didn’t even exist, I would be guilty of defrauding a police officer by failing to accurately identify myself.
Yet now, if an email marketer wants to avoid being caught by spam filters by faking their headers with bogus domain names that don’t exist, the 4th circuit says “Gentlemen start your engines.” Now, as long as the BODY of the email contains valid info on how to reach them, they can FORGE ON. is that right? How is this bogus ruling, in any way, ‘my fault’? Servername forgery used to be illegal. When did it change? Why wasn’t there any notice given before this ridiculous ruling? Servername blacklists as we know them just became useless.
We can agree to disagree.
I believed (although not anymore) that servername forgery as well as a non-working return address in an email header was illegal.
I believe domain owners have the right to the quiet peaceful enjoyment of their inboxes.
I realize this radical new way of thinking isn’t ‘for everyone’.
The reason I got my ass handed to me in court is because I was not allowed to put on my evidence that proved my case. The enormity of my evidence in the Cruise case is right there, in the plain black and white text and imagery called ‘the court record’. I wasn’t allowed to present it or go forward with my case.
Cruise.com attorneys have given me the impression that they want to sue me again when my documentary about this case is released later this year.
Trailer available here: http://SLAPPSUIT.com
You don’t know the entire story and have no idea what-so-ever how deep the spam problem really is.
This will all change someday sooner than you think. My script? It is ‘word for word’verbatim from the court record.
Until you know the entire situation concerning Omega -vs- Mumma you really have no concept of how to fairly judge me or my actions.
This case had little to do with spam and everything to do with the First Amendment.
Now, I’ll leave all you nay-sayers in peace.
I sincerely apologize for screwing up the Internet for everyone.
It wasn’t my intention.
Check with [redacted pending verification] with the ‘[redacted pending verification]‘. at [redacted pending verification]…
WTF?
You [redacted] “compliance team” ??!?!?