Anti-Spammer Goes Ballistic, Part II: The Interview

The following is a transcript of a telephone interview of anti-spam crusader Mark Mumma by Magilla Marketing editor Ken Magill.

Caution, rough language ahead:

Mumma: responding to a question asking if Omega’s lawyer, John Lawless, was being truthful when he said that even Mumma admitted that his address had been supplied to Omega: “I am, of course, going by the exhibit they filed. They indicated that whoever it was who requested my address be added did so from a Comcast cable connection, a cable subscriber in, I believe it was Plainfield, IL.”

Magilla: OK, but he says you said somebody opted your address in. Is he not being straight with me?

Mumma: Well, somebody did opt my address in. I don’t know who the hell it was. I have a pretty good idea. I don’t have any concrete proof.

Magilla: OK, who do you think did it?

Mumma: Well, the address that they e-mailed to was only used as a reply address in my Outlook client.

Magilla: Yeah, I know, but the thing I have to figure out … because when I read this court case at first, it looked to me like somebody, possibly Omega, had harvested addresses, which is illegal. And if they did that, it’s wrong but then, digging further, I’m getting the impression that somebody put your address onto their Web site, which would mean they’re responding to a request for information. And that changes things dramatically, and I’m just trying to find out, ‘is that true?’ And apparently it is.

Mumma: Well, I don’t know what it changes. I never authorized this individual, whoever he or she might be.

Magilla: But all you had to do was opt out given the information that they gave you in their e-mail addresses and you refused to do that. That makes a big difference.

Mumma: Well, yes and no. I didn’t refuse to opt out. What I did was simply refuse to click a link that contains an e-mail address that I never opted into to begin with.

Magilla: Are you verifying that somebody opted these addresses in? You’ve done that, correct?

Mumma: No, no, no, no. The address was never verified. If they had simply sent a confirmation saying: “If you really want to be on…”

Magilla: By legal definition, it does not have to be verified to be opted in, and you and I both know that. It was put into the company’s Web site, and the company was responding to a request for information put on that Web site by somebody else. That is a factually accurate statement, correct?

Mumma: I did not request the information.

Magilla: I didn’t say you requested it. I said somebody put the address in there and they were responding to a request for information. Is that true?

Mumma: Somebody signed me up. Obviously, somebody signed me up. I don’t know who it is.

Magilla: But you have an idea. Who was it? Was it a spammer?

Mumma: I don’t want to speculate, but I highly suspected it was a spammer. I e-mailed a spammer that day, I think it was December 4th, 2004, and the only spammer that I had communicated with that day was in Illinois. That’s where he’s physically located. And the only way someone could have that address was to have received an e-mail from me. That day, I had sent an e-mail to that individual, and as it turns out, the IP address that requested that my e-mail address start receiving Cruise.com junk mail was … It was the very same day that I sent an e-mail to this guy. He got all pissed off and had an attorney send me a letter, and he was going to sue me and all this stuff, and lo and behold, apparently, he just signed me up for a bunch of stuff. But, you know, whether that’s legal or not doesn’t make it right. It shouldn’t be right for me to be able to sign you up to somebody’s e-mail or to sign anyone up.

Magilla: You are correct. But, it looks it does look to me like Omega was unfairly targeted in this whole business.

Mumma: By the spammers who signed me up, you mean?

Magilla: Well, and then you. Him first and then…

Mumma: How’d I target them!?

Magilla: You put up information on a Web page with the woman’s picture, calling them spammers.

Mumma: Well, they sent me unsolicited e-mail.

Magilla: No they did not send you unsolicited e-mail. They sent you e-mail that was solicited. Now, it was solicited by somebody else. It simply was not solicited by you. But it was solicited, was it not?

Mumma: It was not solicited by me, no.

Magilla: That is true, but it was solicited by someone. They were responding to a request for…

Mumma: Unsolicited mail is in the realm of the person who is either asking or not asking for the mail. It was unsolicited mail. I did not solicit it. They didn’t bother to verify that I had solicited it. They just assumed that I had solicited the mail.

Magilla: Because somebody typed in your address. What are they supposed to do? … Well, I know what you think they’re supposed to do.

Mumma: They have a security hole on their Web site.

Magilla: As far as you’re concerned, they should do closed loop, fully verified opt-in. But that is not required by law. They were responding to a request for information.

Mumma: I never said it was required by law.

Magilla: Well, that’s the only way they could guard against what you claimed on a Web site they were doing wrong. Otherwise there is no way to guard against it.

Mumma: Well, let me ask you this. What is your opinion on the forged mail server name that they used?

Magilla: Honestly, it looked to me to be an honest mistake and that maybe they were a little sloppy, but it really did look to me to be, as the court said, an immaterial portion of the case. They had full contact information in their e-mail. You were able to get a hold of their lawyer…

Mumma: But they didn’t have full contact…

Magilla: Listen to me. Listen. You asked a question. I’m answering. You were able to get a hold of their lawyer with a single phone call. Now, we both know that e-mail from guys like Omega is not the problem. OK, but the thing is, you went after them because you could reach them, which as far as I’m concerned is wrong.