Yay Jeremy (was Re: [plug] Spam sender sues)

[Peter Wright]

On 04/06 18:45:53, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Peter Wright wrote:
> > Just watching Ch10 news - they had a story on this, with some extended
[ ... ]
> > You came across very well Jeremy, in case you were wondering. :)
> 
> Aww, shucks. :-)  Was on channels 7 and 9, too.  And radio 6PR.

I must say that I (and others, see link below) were quite impressed at the
PR efforts so far:

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&threadm=3CFB7C55.2B607D95%40spamcop.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fdq%3D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3D3CFB7C55.2B607D95%2540spamcop.net

Quote: "Damn good PR Dept this Joey has ;-)"

> > [ ... ] but it looks like Jeremy may be defending Joseph McNicol
> > against "t3 Direct"'s suit.
> 
> He is indeed.  And loving it.

;-)

> > [0] Though I hope Jem's a little more capable than Lionel Hutts. :)
> 
> Judge, I move for a... bad... court... thingy.

*laugh*

[ NOTE: if you're not really interested in this story, stop reading now,
  cos the below is verging on off-topic-ness... :) ]


Just having a trawl through the http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/ site
now... and have just finished laughing myself sick at the plaintiff's
"Statement of Claim" included in

http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/docs/20020524-1.pdf

I particularly loved Paragraph 3:

  The Plaintiff's income stream is derived from service contracts with
  their clients for the sending of email information on behalf of the
  Plaintiff's clients by way of direct marketing. The Defendant well knew
  at all times that the Plaintiff uses the following internet protocol
  numbers purchased from Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
  performing the Plaintiff's business.

          Internet Protocol Numbers
  (a) t3direct.com.au     A    202.139.241.136
  (b) t3direct.com.au     A    203.55.16.244
  ©   t3direct.com.au     A    192.168.1.10

[ the rest snipped ]

In case your email client didn't read that correctly - the third item in
the list was _not_ a "(c)", though they obviously meant it to be - whatever
software the plaintiff's legal team used to create this document appears to
have rendered it as a copyright symbol. And they didn't notice.

That's not even the best bit, though.

Most of the people on PLUG should notice this, but if you didn't -
192.168.1.10 is _not_ an IP number that could have been purchased from an
ISP. It's part of the IP space reserved for "private" networks:

http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/IP-Masquerade-HOWTO/addressing-the-lan.html

Not really funny in and of itself, it just shows how grossly these people
don't understand what they're dealing with.

That's not even the best bit, though.

In the next paragraph (4) they allege that the "Defendant" sent a complaint
to SPEWS about their spamming, which caused them to be listed in SPEWS.
They then point to the SPEWS record in question - here's a link:

http://www.spews.org/html/S1488.html

I suspect that the SPEWS record has been updated since they wrote this
document.... or maybe the plantiff's legal team never even bothered to look
at it. Note this explicit addition to the record *evil grin*:

  ==========================================================================
  As stated in the SPEWS FAQ, SPEWS does not, has not and will not take 
  nominations or accept requests to list.  SPEWS lists based on available
  evidence that an area on the internet is spamming, supporting spam, or
  spammer friendly.  An example of good available evidence would be when a
  company's website openly states or has stated that spamming and promoting
  spamming is their business model.
  ==========================================================================


*pete falls over laughing*

Pete.
-- 
http://akira.apana.org.au/~pete/
One of the most overlooked advantages to computers is...  If they do
foul up, there's no law against whacking them around a little.
		-- Joe Martin