Internet and e-mail policy and practice
including Notes on Internet E-mail


2006
Months
Dec

Click the comments link on any story to see comments or add your own.


Subscribe to this blog


RSS feed


Home :: Email


12 Dec 2006

Oklahoma Anti-Spammer Loses Big in Court Email

In November, Mark Mumma, who runs a little design firm at webguy.com, lost an appeal in the Fourth Federal Circuit. He'd filed suit against cruise.com and their parent Omega World Travel under CAN SPAM and an Oklahoma anti-spam law. Omega countersued for defamation. The court threw out Mumma's case, and allowed part of the defamation case to proceed. At first blush, this looks like a big win for spammers.

But read the decision, and you'll find that Mumma did just about everything he could to be sure he lost the case. He didn't try to document any meaningful violations of law. Instead he called up the other party and yelled at them. He also made some rather overoptimistic interpretations of Oklahoma law which CAN SPAM preempted.

The judge said that regardless of we think about spam in general, CAN SPAM sets out specific rules which cruise.com followed pretty closely, and those are the ones the court has to enforce. We all know that CAN SPAM says spamming is legal. As David Sorkin noted, CAN SPAM legitimizes spam by regulating it, and even though the mail from cruise.com looked pretty spammy, if the law says it's legal, suing the sender isn't going to accomplish anything.

Don't take this for more than it is. The lesson is that if you plan to file a CAN SPAM suit, it would be a good idea to have some actual evidence of CAN SPAM violations in hand first.

CNet story about the case


posted at: 16:30 :: permanent link to this entry :: 2 comments
posted at: 16:30 :: permanent link to this entry :: 2 comments

comments...        (Jump to the end to add your own comment)

WebGuy
You're right. How silly of me to think that a blatantly "made up" server name like 'fl-broadcast.net' (a domain name that just happened to not be registered to anyone) would be a violation under CAN-SPAM.

Also, a KNOWN to be non-working return email address as the reply address. That's not a violation either apparently. I guess I'll know better next time huh...

(by Mark Mumma 18 Dec 2006 20:15)


Mark is a fraud and friend to many scammers and pedophiles.
Mark is a fraud. Known as close friend to convicted pedophile #John_Aster who plead guilty to over 15000 images of child porn.

(by Rita Anderson 20 Nov 2018 21:35)


Add your comment...

Note: all comments require an email address to send a confirmation to verify that it was posted by a person and not a spambot. The comment won't be visible until you click the link in the confirmation. Unless you check the box below, which almost nobody does, your email won't be displayed, and I won't use it for other purposes.

 
Name:
Email: you@wherever (required, for confirmation)
Title: (optional)
Comments:
Show my Email address
Save my Name and Email for next time

Topics


My other sites

Who is this guy?

Airline ticket info

Taughannock Networks

Other blogs

CAUCE
Criminal Abuse of Domain Names: Bulk Registration and Contact Information Access
52 days ago

A keen grasp of the obvious
My high security debit card
358 days ago

Related sites

Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail

Network Abuse Clearinghouse



© 2005-2018 John R. Levine.
CAN SPAM address harvesting notice: the operator of this website will not give, sell, or otherwise transfer addresses maintained by this website to any other party for the purposes of initiating, or enabling others to initiate, electronic mail messages.