Snotty Scotty vs. Spamcop

Great Slashdot post:
I came home from the pub the other night to find my two cats sitting staring at the carpet opposite each other. They had found a spider with a small head a green body. It was an ugly bastard.

Apparently they’d been torturing it before I got home. I watched them torture it for another half an hour before I finally went to bed.

I imagine that after the “fun” was done, they just ate the critter, since there was no sign of the aforementioned spider, but two very pleased cats asleep on my bed in the morning.

Not wanting to draw any parallels at all, but cats don’t piss about with this sort of stuff, someone invaded their space, they tortured it and finally ate it. How is it that spam can invade my home each day and yet they can get away with it?

Perhaps we need more cats?

This was in response to the news that Scott Richter is suing Spamcop. I’m not a big fan of Spamcop, mostly for technical reasons, but they’ve got my support on this one. It’s no contest really, I’ll get behind just about anyone going up against someone like Richter, who’s one of the more annoying spammers I’ve had the displeasure of dealing with.

He’s suing on the grounds that Spamcop’s practice of stripping the sender’s e-mail addresses out of spam complaints prevents him from complying with the CAN-SPAM act by removing the complainant’s address from his lists. Spamcop, after removing the user’s e-mail address, sends a spam report on behalf of the user to Snotty’s upstream providors. Not knowing the e-mail addresses of the complainants, Snotty can’t prove that they really did opt-in (as if), nor can he remove them from his mailing lists, as the law requires.

Not that I believe for a second that he would actually remove the address or that he cares one whit about the law, but I’m speaking hypothetically here.

I thought for a minute that he might actually have a bit of a case, thanks to YOU-CAN-SPAM, which states that anyone who complains about spam must be removed from any lists, but I’m sure he could successfully argue that because the Spamcop reports don’t include the e-mail address of the complainant, he’s powerless to remove it and therefore has no obligations under the law. Spamcop reports can be disregarded as invalid and neither party, Spamcop nor Snotty Scotty, should incur any liability. So the lawsuit is still bullshit.

Incidentally, this is one of the things I dislike about Spamcop as well. They know that ISPs don’t like reports with edited headers but they continue doing it anyway. At least they offer the option of refusing these reports, which we have.

See also: Scott Richter is a Lying Scumbag