Recently in Spam wars Category

Interesting, I just tried to report spam to a company who I assume ran the campaign in good faith. The report got an unexpected response:

: host lonvs07.kinexus.net[212.113.24.167] said: 554

    Service unavailable; Client host [89.234.3.158] blocked using

    relays.ordb.org; ordb.org was shut down on December 18, 2006. Please remove

    from your mailserver. (in reply to RCPT TO command)

Panic! One of our server IP's got blacklisted as a spam source!..... phew, not the case (thank you slashdot), emailiq are filtering their email for spam using a blacklist database that shut down over a year ago. The blacklist have decided they gave enough notice to people filtering against their list, so from now on they are reporting every email checked as being spam. If you're not getting email today, better check with your mail provider.

This company may not have meant to send spam, but because of spam they now have no email until the reconfigure their servers. Events like this show just how much spam is really costing everyone.

Does podcast start with a capital P? It's not something I've though of before, the whole podcast thing passing by me until today - when I stared in one!*

Podcast's are like radio shows that you listen to offline. If you have the right software, the show will download when you are on the Internet and copy itself to your music player. Then you can listen to it when you are out and about. Although I am a fan of audio (be it music, documentaries, comedies and so on) as much as the next person, I've never got round to playing with podcasts and finding ones I want to listen to regularly.

The biggest reason for that is the difference between iTunes and Windows Media. Having just played with the iTunes podcast setup instructions as directed on this page, I had the system setup in less than a minute so I should automatically receive the future shows as they are released. Unfortunately, I don't use iTunes for all my music. My new phone syncronises through Windows "ActiveSync" which talks to Windows Media Player. I dare say I could change that to sync with iTunes, or figure out how to make podcasts work with Windows Media player but I simply haven't spent any time to figure that out. I used iTunes when I won an iPod Shuffle, but I don't use the device that often. I've been using my new phone to listen to music (it synchronises with Windows Media Player) but that too may be a passing fad.

Now, that's my excuse for not listening to podcasts out the way, what made me start listening today I hear you ask.

Well, my experiences with taking a spammer to court have garnered a little media interest, to which point I was interviewed at the beginning of the week by "Out-law" magazine. They are a magazine that focuses on legal issues of technology. I've been reading it myself for a few years too. They have a weekly podcast but I've never listened to it. I have read the transcripts though, just never downloaded to listen. The interview with me has been included in this weeks podcast. The whole show is 10 minutes long and if you've ever wondered what I sound like now is your time to find out. (If you don't figure it out during listening the spam story is in the last half and the harmonious Scot's accent isn't me, it's the journalist).

Happy listening folks.

*star is probably a bit strong, featured may be a more accurate word.

It's arrived, the County Court Judgement against the spammers known as Cybernet Media Limited and Chris Mortimer. The court awarded me £100 in compensation and a further £325 in costs (£425 in total). The big question now is will they pay? They have until the 28th February.

I admit this still isn't really what I wanted. In the original court documents I asked for two things.

Firstly, for them to pay the charges I told them I expected them to pay if they continued to send spam - at a rate of £50 + VAT per email. The judge said he couldn't award that because it didn't reflect the costs their breaking the PECR regulations incurred me. In his words, I could have asked for a million pounds per email and it wouldn't be a valid claim. If however those particular emails had stopped our system working and the repair had cost a million pounds then that would be allowable. I'm not unhappy with the judges decision, it's perfectly logical, but I understand why others don't bother trying to stop spammers - it's simply not worth the time.

Secondly, I asked for them to put in writing that they would stop sending the spam and follow the regulations. The judge couldn't order that (not within his powers) and as we know from reading the comments of my earlier posts Cybernet Media continue to send spam, not because they don't know the regulations, just they choose to ignore them.

I'll update the blog if there are any developments.

Some things make you smile, some make you laugh out loud.

If you've been here before you may know I've taken some spammers to court. After the directions hearing I actually posted who they are. It seems that they also visit this blog, because they replied! Not in their own name though - read the comment from "Richard Jones" and how I identified him as the original spammer.

Taking a spammer to court to get them to stop isn't for the faint of heart.

Here's the history:
A company, "Cybernet Media" (stick .co.uk on the end of that and you'll find their website, I'll not give them the benefit of a link) started sending spam way back in 2006.
I asked them to stop, they continued.
I pointed out to them that by sending it they are breaking The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. I asked them to reply and confirm they would stop sending the spam. I said that if they send any more I'll bill them £50 per email for my time so far. I said if they didn't reply I'd take more formal action.
They didn't reply, I didn't get round to taking the formal action... until they sent 2 more emails. I phoned them and faxed them. They said by phone they'd stop but decided to send 4 more emails within 24 hours. This was now August 2007.
So, I sent them an invoice for 6 emails. They didn't pay or respond.
I called them again in September and said if they don't pay I'd take them to court. They didn't pay so I started a small claims court action against them.

Here I made a mistake: I asked for the damages plus a statement from them that they would comply with the regulations in future. That meant it had to have a "directions hearing" which of course cybernet didn't turn up to either. Still the result of the directions hearing was headed by a line: "1. There be judgement for the claimant for damages to be determined by the court" - so I guess that means they agree I have a claim the only question left is how much.

I now know the small claims court can't make people say they will comply with regulations (that's what the judge explained to me in the directions hearing). To do so I would have to take out an injunction. If they break the injunction and send more spam, they commit a criminal offence of contempt of court (and could even go to prison for that). Problem is I still haven't figured out how exactly what to do to take out an injunction. At the moment all I'm claiming from them is the damages from them sending spam and me having to chase them to pay the damages (which, incidentally, they've never contested. They haven't even replied to the court which as directors of a limited company may be another offense under the Companies Act, I'm not sure though). Anyway, damages so far £1,005.37.

I still have another week in which to decide if I want to take out an injunction on them but to be honest I have proper work to do and I can't afford the time to research it. I do now realise why the information commissioner has never taken anyone court for breaking the regulations though. The judge raised a good question - "Do you think they will actually pay?". I have no idea, I'd rather hope that with a court order against them they would have to. My case is against both an individual and a company. They don't declare their company number on their website (they really should, but hey, no one's perfect), "Chris" who I spoke to didn't know the company number and then claimed he worked as an agent, not for the company. As he sent the spam, I put him down personally on the claim as well as the limited company. Mid February is the hearing date - I'll keep you posted!

I haven't posted about this for a while and thought I should just say what's happening. The company in question ignored letters from the court, or at least, they chose not to reply. That's right, no defence, no counter claim, nothing. So, the court have set a date to make a judgement on the case. I have no idea if they'll turn up to the hearing (it's a long drive - they're based in Lancashire and the case has been set in Canterbury). Seeing as they didn't contest the location of the hearing, I guess they're not coming. I can give them the benefit of the doubt though and assume they will though.

It does bring another question up though. As a limited company (as well as individuals, they could never make up their mind who they were trading as so I brought the claim against all of them) what happens if it doesn't respond? I have a feeling (I'm not certain) the directors are responsible for the company responding and if they don't (or the company, as it's own legal entity doesnt) respond, they may have to answer to a criminal court which can fine them personally (I'll have to look though the detail of the companies act)

The company I've taken to the small claims court for sending spam haven't responded to the court. The court told me that I can now make a "Request for Judgement". The documents they sent say they will now notify both me and the defendants "...of any steps you should take to prepare for the hearing at which the court will decide what amount you are entitled to".

I'm not sure how this will work, because I wanted the company to state they will comply with the PECR regulations, not just pay compensation for the time of mine they've taken by sending spam. I wonder what will happen if they wont agree to that?

Spam wars are about to get interesting....

Yesterday, I started a small claims court action against a company to have them pay for the spam they've been sending to email addresses I run. I didn't take this action lightly. I had asked them to stop by email, I had asked them to stop by phone, I had asked them to stop by Fax.

In the email, I said that if they send any more I will be charging them £50 per email. When two more arrived a month later I phoned them and they claimed not to have received my email, so I told them the content and I also faxed it. They promised on the phone not to send any more, but less than 24 hours later I got 4 more. All their emails claim not to be spam because they are sent manually... seeing as most of them come in the early hours of the morning, I can give them the benefit of the doubt by guessing they keep strange working hours.

The paperwork has gone, I'll post information here as time allows.

Break out the champagne everyone, Paul O'Brien, from Intellimailer has told the Information Commissioner's Office that they will be sending no more spam. The ICO is happy that intellimailer have been educated in the correct meaning and interpretation of the law and will send no more spam, ever.

Fantastic!

If you receive any spam from intellimailer, report them to the ICO (I have a contact there who has the case history, email me if you'd like the information) and please let me (and any readers) know how you get on.

By the way, the full list of domain names they used to send spam to me has grown a bit, so here it is in full:

intrer11.co.uk
intrer12.co.uk
intrer14.co.uk
intrer15.co.uk
(and checking whois, they're continuing to buy domains starting intrer for some reason. Note they haven't registered intrer13 yet, guess they're superstitious!)
intellimailer.org.uk
int-mailer.org.uk
emaileronline.co.uk
int-mailer-uk.co.uk
ukmailing-co.co.uk
uk-mailing-co.co.uk
emailer-online.co.uk
the-intelligentmailer.co.uk
kt8.com
mailing-software-uk.co.uk

I bet you're all wondering what's happening about the intellimailer spam? Well, having ignored my requests that they stop spamming me, they are now ignoring the requests of the Information Commissioner. They did at least respond to the ICO to say they would remove my from the database, except they didnt remove me and continue to send the spam.

The ICO has all the evidence, I'm waiting to hear from them what their next step will be - I'll post here when I've heard and have time.

I confess I've not been doing a lot on the spam wars front. There are far more interesting things to be doing in life than fighting spam, like earning a living (plug!). However, there are two companies that have been REALLY annoying me lately, so much so I had to do something about it.

I complained about one of them to the Information Commissioners Office. They are responsible for ensuring people and companies comply with the telecommunications regulations. In my view, they are an INTELLIGENT government department, they don't wade in taking everyone through the courts for the genuine oversight or misunderstanding of the regulations, they first ensure the company/people are educated to know the law. Only then, if the company persists in breaking the law will they take action. So I understand they haven't taken action in court against anyone for sending spam. I'd like to think this is because the companies they have 'educated' have stopped sending spam.

Anyway, I filed a complaint about kt8.com and their various trading names. I've just received the following response from the ICO:

So there we have it. I am right to say that I should not be sent spam by these companies. What do you think the chances are they will stop now? I've asked the ICO by email what the response of kt8.com was when they were contacted. Particularly why kt8.com ignored my requests they stop sending me email yet will apparently stop now the ICO has asked (I'm not sure if this is a standard response letter and kt8.com haven't actually responded).

So, if you have received spam from any of the following domains and they have ignored your unsubscribe request (not that you subscribed in the first place, they took my email addresses from a number of places) complain to the ICO as well and lets see what happens.

intellimailer.org.uk
int-mailer.org.uk
emaileronline.co.uk
int-mailer-uk.co.uk
ukmailing-co.co.uk
uk-mailing-co.co.uk
emailer-online.co.uk
the-intelligentmailer.co.uk
kt8.com
mailing-software-uk.co.uk

You may also like to know these domains are registered both as companies and as individuals.
The company mentioned on one is: "Domain Host Ltd", who are the same address on the domain registration as "Domainhost Ltd", companies house have them as company number 05632256 so (giving the benefit of the doubt) they made a typo on the domain registration. Perhaps it was "Paul O'Brien" who made the typo, he appears as the private individual that owns several of the domains as well as being the admin contact for kt8.com. KT8.com happens to haves the same PO Box address in Whitstable as Domainhost Ltd. As I said, benefit of the doubt, it could be a whole collection of typing errors when registering the domain names.

Oh, I almost forgot to tell you all what product they were trying to sell in their spam..... Server based software to send large amounts of marketing emails. As they say on their site:
"With Intelligent Mailer your mailings are faster and more likely to get through ‘spam’ filters"
I couldn't make it any more ironic if I tried.

One of the many spams recieved today was titled:
easily, enough I am HARI SELDON and his eyes all.
Hari Seldon was a character in Issac Assimov's Foundation series. So, we now know that the spammer can read, perhaps his writing skills will improve with practice.

I think I'm going to have to start a new category for these spam wars posts - there are getting to be so many!

Today I would like to report to you all a small success. Remember that domain mail-2204vf49.co.uk that had it's address details hidden as it was registered to a non-trading individual who had opted out of displaying details in the registry? I spoke to nominet about that and they said if I could send them evidence that the domain was actually registered for a trading reason then they could 'correct' the opt out declaration and show the details (only non-trading individuals can opt out of the registry). I sent them a fax explaining the history of spam from this domain and extracts from my server log files and they agreed that the domain is really being used commercially. So here it
is, the owner of the spam sending domain is: [begin fanfare]

Domain name:
mail-2204vf49.co.uk

Registrant:
Tony Slater

Registrant type:
UK Individual

Registrant's address:
du-pont house
Cranbrook
GH56 9JH
GB

WAIT!!! STOP THE FANFARE!!! ... there's something fishy about that address. Like no street name... and I don't live far from Cranbrook and I happen to know that Cranbrook is in the TN postcodes, not GH. The Royal Mail website doesn't even recognise the GH postcode.

What next? Well, I've sent Nominet an email asking what to do when an address is false in the registry. I think I'll give company "T" another phone call as well. The man there admited sending us the spam though this domain, so perhaps he'll tell me who owns it (perhaps I'm giving the benefit of doubt to often, but hey, perhaps they could have accidentally registered the name with completely incorrect details......)

Wow, so much progress in one day. Company "W" came back with the story that they didn't actually buy the list. It was given to them by one of the owners friends. I think we can all guess how he's feeling (the owner and the friend!).

The friend had used some software called "Atomic" or similar to scan web sites and extract the email addresses. A quick google brings us

Atomic Email Hunter, an email extractor, is designed to harvest e-mail addresses and user names from web sites using the HTTP protocol.

(I'm not linking to the web site on principle by the way). I'm hoping to speak to "friend" to find out more about how this software works, how many addresses it found, how he chose (or if the software chose) the domain names to scan for email addresses. I also want to know how it describes itself to the hunted web server (I expect it calls itself "internet explorer" or similar).

Onto company "D", who came back with the correct name and phone number of the company they bought an address of mine from. They also included a request that I don't make contact with them again and said they would involve solicitors if I say anything slanderous against them. I thought that it couldn't be slander if it was true (and I have the spam email to prove it) - perhaps I better check....

Quick google search returns: Basic Libel for Idiots
normal caveat applies here - don't trust everything you read on the internet as it could be wrong!
It says:

Basic Libel for Idiots By Adam Porter, editor Year Zero, Dec 2002.

Libel is the written word. Slander is spoken.

There are two versions of defamation, libel and slander. Libel is when the defamation is written down (including email, bulletin boards and websites), and slander is when the incident relates to words spoken.

In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it!

OK, I stand corrected, I would be libeling company D if I lied about how they sent me spam, not slandering them! I wont correct the man at company D on this point though, he'd rather not hear from me and if he really has given me the details of the list he bought then I will leave him in peace.

I've had some progress with Eden communications. They still insist they can keep sending the spam (so later I shall discuss this with the information commissioner, watch this space for the results), but they did provide the contact details of the company they bought the list from. The company that sold this list also tried to call me as well. Always wanting to give people the benefit of the doubt, we shall call the sending company "T". "T" insist they bought the addresses in good faith, so I will be emailing them to ask for the details of the company they bought them from. By the way, the reason for that strange domain name used in sending spam (mail-2204vf49.co.uk) is because they use it to track campaigns. Sounds resonable but I still have many unanswered questions. Still, lets give them the benefit of the doubt and a chance to answer before jumping to conclusions.