Supreme Court declines to hear anti-spam case

Yesterday the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal for Virginia v. Jaynes. This means that the Virginia state supreme court ruling overturning the Virginia anti-spam law currently stands.
Jeremy Jaynes was a well known spammer who went under the name Gavin Stubberfield. He was pretty famous in anti-spammer circles for sending horse porn spam. In 2003 he was arrested under the Virginia state anti-spam statute. He was initially convicted but the conviction was overturned on appeal.
Ethan Ackerman has blogged about this case, including a recap today.
Venkat Balasubramani has also blogged about this case.
Mickey Chandler has the docs.
John Levine weighed in.
News Articles: CNN, Washington Post, CNET

Delivery can be counter-intuitive
The not April Fools post

Related Posts

Declan weighs in on the VA law

Declan McCullagh writes today about the VA anti-spam law being overturned by the state supreme court.

Read More

Negative branding, part 2

Last week I commented on negative branding in email. One of the comments on that post was an advertisement for a company called WrapMail. In the course of attempting to determine if this was spam or a real comment, I checked out their website. While the comment itself may not be spam, and it may not be providing services to spammers, the entire business model strikes me as a delivery nightmare.
Briefly, once you sign up with this company, you set your mail client to use their SMTP server. As all of your mail goes through their server is it “wrapped” with a HTML template of your choosing. All of your email is now branded with that template, allowing you to formally advertise your business even during the course of standard business communications.
There are multiple ways this can negatively impact a specific brand.

Read More

TWSD: breaking the law

I tell my clients that they should comply with CAN SPAM (physical postal address and unsubscribe option) even if the mail they are sending is technically exempt. The bar for legality is so low, there is no reason not to.
Sure, there is a lot of spam out there that does not comply with CAN SPAM. Everything you see from botnets and proxies is in violation, although many of those mails do actually meet the postal address and unsubscribe requirements.
One of my spams recently caught my eye today with their disclaimer on the bottom: “This email message is CAN SPAM ACT of 2003 Compliant.” The really funny bit is that it does not actually comply with the law. Even better, the address it was sent to is not published anywhere, so the company could also be nailed for a dictionary attack and face enhanced penalties.
It reminds me of the old spams that claimed they complied with S.1618.

Read More