When I wrote my story yesterday about a <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=200001079">self-proclaimed anti-spam activist's feud with a company he accused of being a "spammer"</a>, I knew I was touching on a sensitive issue, but I didn't realize just how sensitive until today. Both sides took exception to the wording of passages in my story, particularly those that used the "s" word, and I'm sure that neither side will be looking to shake hands and laugh abou
When I wrote my story yesterday about a self-proclaimed anti-spam activist's feud with a company he accused of being a "spammer", I knew I was touching on a sensitive issue, but I didn't realize just how sensitive until today. Both sides took exception to the wording of passages in my story, particularly those that used the "s" word, and I'm sure that neither side will be looking to shake hands and laugh about this anytime soon.You don't need me to tell you that spam is a very big problem for IT departments and their users. Spam hogs bandwidth, transmits malware, and eats away at productivity. But it's arguably just as big a problem for a company to be accused of sending spam. As Oklahoma ISP Mark Mumma found, calling a company a "spammer" is a serious accusation with serious consequences. Mumma initially threatened to identify Omega Word Travel, a provider of online booking tools and flight tracking information, as a "spammer" on his various anti-spam Web sites, but instead, the courts say he defamed Omega, and he's now been ordered to pay that company $330,000 in damages.
There's a lot of he said/he said going back and forth between Mumma and Omega's legal team. Omega pointed out to me that they've spent a lot of money to successfully defend themselves against being labeled a "spammer" (something the courts agree that they're not). Mumma, meanwhile, isn't convinced, calling the header in Omega's marketing e-mails deceptive and claiming he never signed up to receive their e-mails.
The issues of unsolicited e-mails (or "spam"), e-mail lists, e-mail headers, compensation, defamation, and reputation all play a role in this case. Both sides agree that Omega is a legitimate business. Their primary disagreement is on the difference between marketing and spamming. The court has decided in this case -- in favor of Omega. But the line between the two can be vague.
I'm most curious at this point to know how much of a problem you perceive spam to be. How do you define spam, and is the problem growing? Be sure to weigh in with your thoughts.
About the Author(s)
You May Also Like
Securing Code in the Age of AI
April 24, 2024Beyond Spam Filters and Firewalls: Preventing Business Email Compromises in the Modern Enterprise
April 30, 2024Key Findings from the State of AppSec Report 2024
May 7, 2024Is AI Identifying Threats to Your Network?
May 14, 2024Where and Why Threat Intelligence Makes Sense for Your Enterprise Security Strategy
May 15, 2024
Black Hat USA - August 3-8 - Learn More
August 3, 2024Cybersecurity's Hottest New Technologies: What You Need To Know
March 21, 2024