[wordup] Spammers and Lawyers In Bed Together?

[Adam Shand]

I can't say this surprises me, however ...

From: Dave Joll <davejoll at es.co.nz>

Hi Adam

Thought this may be of interest for your "Word Up" list... one person on a
newsgroup I read reported some spam to Spamcop. He recently (in the last
couple of days) received the following message from the spammer's ISP. I
haven't been able to verify this for accuracy yet (I read my mail and news
off line) but IF true it sets one hell of a worrying precedent.

The original newsgroup message also contained the entire spam plus spamcop
headers. I've deleted these as they identify the original recipient of the
spam.

Hope this is of interest.

- Dave

*original message*

PaeTec Communications, Inc. received the attached complaint from you
regarding your contention that you received spam, i.e., that you received
an unsolicited, commercial, bulk e-mail. PaeTec is an integrated
telecommunications provider which offers access to the Internet to
businesses. PaeTec strongly opposes spamming. The e-mail about which you
complained originated from a customer of PaeTec's by the name of
MonsterHut.

PaeTec's agreement with MonsterHut expressly prohibits the sending of
spam. In reliance on the complaints it received from you and others
stating that the e-mail you received from MonsterHut was spam, PaeTec
informed MonsterHut that it was terminating its contract. MonsterHut
responded by commencing litigation against PaeTec. Prior to PaeTec being
advised of the existence of the litigation, MonsterHut obtained a
temporary restraining order from the Court, which prevents PaeTec from
terminating MonsterHut's contract pending a hearing at which both sides
can present evidence. The only proof before the Court at the time it
issued the injunction was MonsterHut's claim that it had received
permission from the recipients, such as yourself, to send the e-mail, and
therefore, the e-mail was not spam. PaeTec has disputed MonsterHut's
assertion and has demanded that MonsterHut prove that you and the other
recipients solicited the e-mail. MonsterHut has also claimed that
virtually every complaint PaeTec received was simply a request to be
removed from MonsterHut's mailing lists and was not an allegation that its
e-mail was spam. PaeTec interprets your communication as not simply
requesting removal, but complaining that the e-mail was spam.

It would be very helpful for PaeTec to obtain sworn statements, which are
also known as affidavits, from you and others stating (if true) that, to
the best of your knowledge, you did not solicit e-mails from MonsterHut,
you did not opt-in to being included on the mailing list of MonsterHut,
you did not opt-in to be included on any mailing list that indicated you
were authorizing the sending of e-mails by other unspecified parties, and
that your complaint was not merely a request to have your name removed
from a mailing list. If you are willing to assist PaeTec in its efforts to
vacate the injunction and terminate MonsterHut's Internet access service,
please follow the instructions at http://www.litigation.paetec.net. On the
other hand, if you did solicit e-mail from MonsterHut and/or if you
intended merely to request that your name and address be removed from
MonsterHut's mailing list, PaeTec would appreciate it if you would advise
it of those facts so that it can take them into account in deciding
whether to pursue a termination of MonsterHut's service. If you have any
questions, please contact us at mailto:ipadmin at paetec.com