Thursday, May 31, 2007

Robert Soloway Arrested

I'm at a conference, so I don't have much time to blog about it, but helpful folks keep forwarding me this over and over, convinced that I need to be told. So, for the record, I am aware that Soloway was arrested. More on the topic from Forbes, CNet, and Yahoo. I really don't have much to add to their excellent summaries of the situation.

Monday, May 28, 2007

AOL Image Blocking Link Roundup

Here's links to the most relevant takes on the recent webmail changes at AOL, in my own humble opinion.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Re-thinking Spamcop

It's time to go back to the drawing board for a new opinion on Spamcop's SCBL blacklist. In the past, I had consistently observed significant false positive issues, which now seem to be resolved.

For more on the topic, including metrics showing how well Spamcop is working in my test environment, click here.

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

ESPs, their clients, and ISP blocking

I loved this post, and here's what I loved about it:

[The prospect who got himself blacklisted] thought he could solve all his problems if he switched to MailChimp, because we apparently have a good reputation, and because he thought we had some kind of secret-handshake arrangement with ISPs (actually, that's not the case---they'll blacklist anybody that generates too many spam complaints).
Ben @ MailChimp is 100% correct. ISPs will block and blacklist you, regardless of who your email service provider (ESP) is, or what IP address you send from. And they're smart enough to figure it out when you change ESPs. If they blocked you at the other ESP, it will take anywhere from immediately to very soon before they find you and block you at your new home. Your reputation follows you. You'll hit the same spamtraps, have the same volume of complaints. Since these are what drive ISP blocks, switching ESPs isn't going to magically wash all that away.

Sunday, May 06, 2007

Mark Mumma News Roundup

Mark Mumma, if you weren't aware, is the anti-spammer who sued Omega World Travel a/k/a cruise.com over spam allegations, and lost. It seems to me that this may have been a situation where hubris and anger took control, getting in the way of facts and logic.

After all, this is the guy who let his mouth get the better of him when being interviewed by Ken Magill. Page four is the, uh, I guess you'd say, the best bit, where Mumma instructs Ken Magill to return the call of Omega's lawyer and "
you guys plan your next gay weekend together." Right after bizarrely telling Ken, "well good luck to you in prison."

According to John Levine, Ed Falk, and others, it looks like Mumma lost big, to the tune of $2.5 million in damages, Omega having won the defamation lawsuit it brought against him. Ken Magill's overview and analysis is spot on, in my opinion.

I can't tell for sure whether or not the mail in question was spam. So I'll set that aside for the moment. But clearly, calling people names, risking (and ultimately committing) defamation is unwise. Sticking to the facts would likely help prevent that. Nor is it wise to agree to talk to a reporter then flip out and start to insult both him and the other party involved. Nor is it wise to refuse the settle the defamation allegations, even after you lose your anti-spam suit, setting yourself up to lose even more. Nor is it wise to tell people you're going to sue them if they don't stop emailing you, without telling them your email address. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I could go on for hours.

I hope somebody obtains all the court documents and uses them as the "how not to behave" section of a book on how to fight spam.

May 30, 2007 update: More on this from Ken Magill.
Anti-Spammers Distance Themselves from Mumma
Belligerant Anti-Spammer Watch: Mumma's Claims Debunked