From contact@spamis.org Mon Jun 6 12:26:43 2005 [2005-06-06 12:26:43 96084]
Received: from 220-142-9-189.dynamic.hinet.net (220-142-9-189.dynamic.hinet.net [220.142.9.189])
   by www.munged.ext (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id j56GQdY00788
   for <domains01@munged.ext>; Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:26:41 -0400
X-Message-Info: 310iujKLoPK98YRbsoRN85A143DCzdKZRnwouQFZngEdz612NLC
Received: from spamis.org (80) by abi527-a881.spamis.org with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.8.4378.1187);
   Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:15:41 +0500
Received: from spamis.org (spamis.org 170)
   by spamis.org (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id clj3UZ417
   for <domains01@munged.ext>; Mon, 06 Jun 2005 03:16:41 -0200 (EST)
   (envelope-from contact@spamis.org)
Received: from BY062718079293577 (modemcable131.29214-323.e.spamis.org 198)
   (authenticated bits=1)
   by spamis.org (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id vp2WMN5fj726
   for <domains01@munged.ext>; Mon, 06 Jun 2005 03:15:41 -0200 (EST)
   (envelope-from contact@spamis.org)
Message-ID: <4022kw29o364$pb7sha42zcw6$6fv2tp5@H84521193818866>
From: "SPAMIS:" <contact@spamis.org>
To: <Domains01@www.munged.ext>
Subject: SPAMIS: Strategic Partnership Against Microsoft Illegal Spam
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:15:41 +0600

----854347788397877068
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Junk mail from (Microsoft) MS: whose spam is it anyway?
Graham Lea / The Register Tech Publication
_____________________________________________________________

Special report "Spammers are thieves... They're hijacking your system to d=
eliver their unrequested, unwanted advertising," says a new Microsoft web =
site paper by R'ykandar Korra'ti.

But Microsoft is on shaky ground when it comes to spam - in recent newsgro=
up posting the company's own abuse manager Mike Lyman has effectively been=
conceding that Microsoft sends out unwelcome, unsolicited mail, and that =
company staff are unwilling and unable to do much about it.

Microsoft's anti-spam stance is being undermined by a combination of fault=
y software systems, bureaucracy and incompetence.

Lyman means well, but getting Microsoft to deliver a service that comes cl=
ose to Korra'ti's objectives seems to be like trying to push water uphill.=
This isn't helped by the greed factor operating on top of the other probl=
ems.

According to Korra'ti, "The allegedly legitimate' spammers... don't hide w=
here their mail is coming from, and at least they pretend to offer a way o=
ff their lists." As far as quite a few users are concerned, that makes Mic=
rosoft a "legitimate spammer".

Several mailing lists and newsgroups are currently discussing complaints a=
bout Microsoft and spam, and there have been several clear instances where=
the company has been at fault, and where this has been conceded by Lyman.=
One of the problems, he admits, is a "tainted" database that isn't being =
fixed, and is still being used.

He also concedes that at least one mailing wasn't justified, that some Mic=
rosoft staff aren't acting according to official company policy when it co=
mes to unsolicited mail, and that the company is currently far more concer=
ned with privacy, and is therefore putting too few resources into cleaning=
up its own act on spam.

The database problems often make it difficult for people to get off the ma=
iling list, which they could well have been put onto without their agreeme=
nt. This is by no means unusual in the industry, but Microsoft continues t=
o add people to its list, to use databases that haven't been properly clea=
ned up, and to transfer mailing lists to third parties without the knowled=
ge or permission of the people listed.

The emailing that caused most ire was one about Microsoft's plans for Y2K =
(two copies of this one just this morning - Ed), but other smaller volume =
efforts continue. Some people also claim that visitors to Microsoft sites =
may find themselves getting unrequested newsletters.

And last week Microsoft is said to have mailed MCSE training course attend=
ees who had specifically checked the 'no publicity' box.

When Microsoft sold Sidewalk to Citysearch, it seems to have sold its data=
base without deleting those who had asked to be removed but at the time we=
re possibly only flagged for removal. To their annoyance, they were then s=
tarted hearing from Sidewalk: "Since you previously registered with Sidewa=
lk, we thought you would like to know..."

Unsolicited email from Microsoft may say that the email is being sent to "=
preferred members," but recipients frequently deny that they have ever kno=
wingly become a "member" of any Microsoft list.

It can however be very difficult not to wind up on one or more Microsoft l=
ists, via registration of OS or applications, or through the (largely comp=
ulsory) registration procedure for the Windows Update or Office Update ser=
vices.

Microsoft inevitably gets its hands on details of a very large proportion =
of PC users, and it therefore has a duty to be serious, consistent and res=
ponsible in the way it handles this data.

But on the contrary, from what Lyman concedes it would seem Microsoft is i=
nconsistent, irresponsible, and cavalier. Lyman admits that all is not wel=
l with Microsoft databases. He said in a newsgroup posting that "the data =
base was tainted and the mailing wasn't justified". But he seems to have l=
ittle power to influence change at Microsoft, where the current concern at=
the group where he reports is privacy rather than spamming. He is unable =
personally to get at the faulty database, and in effect blames Microsoft's=
impenetrable bureaucracy.

When challenged about unplugging the offending servers, he wrote: "Physica=
l ability does not equal authority". There are many examples of users taki=
ng all possible steps to get removed, and finding it impossible. People we=
re "working to fix their messes," Lyman said, but even a threat to divert =
a $50,000 budget to non-Microsoft products was only likely "to impact the =
local [Microsoft] weenie more than the guys at corp HQ who did the spammin=
g."

He was also brutally frank about what happens when email is sent to addres=
ses like abuse@microsoft.com: "you're probably hitting some little peon in=
the organisation who has zero say in how things are run. ... By the time =
the stuff gets to those who are the decision makers it's probably been boi=
led down to numbers and stats with maybe a few samples of the complaints. =
600,000 messages went out, 100 complaints came back, hmm, must be doing a =
pretty good job.'"

Lyman notes that most Microsoft marketing people don't have Internet exper=
ience, and so fail to grasp the implications of what they're doing. As far=
as they're concerned what the recipients regard as unsolicited spam are "=
informative announcements".

Lyman says: "The one thing that's kept my frustration over the pace of thi=
ngs at Microsoft from completely boiling over is I deal with the same peop=
le for privacy issues as I do with spamming issues. They've been very focu=
ssed on piracy and frankly I'd rather have them focussed on privacy."

One of the greatest fears for spammers (at least the "legitimate" spammers=
who can be tracked and pilloried) is being black-listed by the Mail Abuse=
Protection System (MAPS) founded by Paul Vixie in 1997. MAPS has develope=
d a Real-Time Black Hole List (RBL) used by some 300 licensed subscribing =
ISPs (numbers have doubled each year, so far) to block spam.

Nick Nicholas, the front man for MAPS, said there were 12 complete nominat=
ions to list Microsoft, and many incomplete ones, when the issue of black-=
listing Microsoft was raised. Lyman thinks that MAPS is trying to become a=
n "anti-spamming version of TRUSTe" but is doing it from outside the corpo=
rate world.

This is true, and for the moment at least, MAPS does not enjoy too much ma=
jor league support. MAPS admits it has made mistakes in its blacklists in =
the past. There were rumblings that Microsoft might sue MAPS if Microsoft =
was placed on the RBL list (Lyman ominously mentioned that "deep pockets u=
sually win"), but Microsoft recently concluded a deal with MAPS to use the=
product in Hotmail to cut down on spam, making any legal action much less=
likely. Ironically, Hotmail itself has taken legal action against what it=
regards as the abuse of Hotmail. Lyman claims that Microsoft has schedule=
d improving the database, but has no timing as to when this will happen.

He noted that he took a firm line with Microsoft and has overcome a view t=
hat persisted at Microsoft that people who complained had forgotten they h=
ad registered to receive spam.

In one message Lyman said of old requests to be removed "the database purg=
e should clear them out", but it would be impossible to find any culprits =
for previous abuses on the Microsoft staff. But "if the harvested stuff is=
recent ["last year or so"], there's a major problem with policy violation=
and heads need to roll." So anybody getting junk mail from Microsoft to a=
n email address first used in the last year should take up Lyman's offer t=
o sort the matter out and contact him at usma87@hotmail.com.

He noted: "I hope other companies avoid the mistakes our folks made and go=
straight for the confirmed subscriptions up front. It'll save them lots o=
f pain." Lyman appears to be a Microsoft person who is actually trying to =
sort out the spamming situation, but with little or no help. And there are=
those who say that the anti-spamming cure by the net cops is worse than t=
he disease.

In Congress recently Rep Heather Wilson told a hearing that "banning all s=
pam "may be unconstitutional because it would ban unsolicited mail that pe=
ople do not mind receiving - or even want to receive..."

There is a way to block Microsoft spam for MS Exchange users who use Excha=
nge to provide SMTP services, and it's described at info.edu/Techdir/relay=
ing-exchange.html. There are also spam filter packages such as SLMail, Mai=
lShield, N-Plex, the Isode Message Switch, VOPmail, and WorldSecureMail.

In view of what Lyman says, a column "written" by Bill Gates on the subjec=
t of spam last year has a certain piquancy: "My company is among many that=
offer regular emailings to customers and potential customers. But we only=
send email to people who have requested it, and we have easy ways for peo=
ple to remove themselves from the mailing list." This is clearly untrue. G=
ates then described spam:

"Sometimes spam includes a purported way for you to remove yourself from t=
he mailing list, but it often doesn't work. In fact, making the request ma=
y do nothing more than prove to the spammer that your e-mail address is va=
lid - prompting more mailings."

Ahem. Gastronomic note: Spam stands for spiced ham, and is a trademark of =
Hormel Foods' tinned luncheon meat, first introduced in 1937. For this rea=
son, spam is often referred to as unsolicited commercial email (UCE). Ther=
e is also a spam fan club.


----854347788397877068--

------------------------------------------------------------

[whois.publicinterestregistry.net]

Domain ID:D106313959-LROR
Domain Name:SPAMIS.ORG
Created On:14-May-2005 21:43:04 UTC
Last Updated On:14-May-2005 21:43:05 UTC
Expiration Date:14-May-2006 21:43:04 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Tucows Inc. (R11-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:tuWsYD9mO6xpkfVS
Registrant Name:Robert Soloway
Registrant Organization:SPAMIS
Registrant Street1:PO Box 1259
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Seattle
Registrant State/Province:WA
Registrant Postal Code:98111
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.2062231271
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:contact@broadcastadvertise.net
Admin ID:tuTVlAm6eQdRTMQj
Admin Name:Domain Direct
Admin Organization:Domain Direct
Admin Street1:96 Mowat Avenue
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Toronto
Admin State/Province:ON
Admin Postal Code:M6K3M1
Admin Country:CA
Admin Phone:+1.4165312084
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:+1.4165315584
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:admin-contact@domaindirect.net
Tech ID:tuThILB9LDhDbzFP
Tech Name:Domain Direct
Tech Organization:Domain Direct
Tech Street1:96 Mowat Avenue
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Toronto
Tech State/Province:ON
Tech Postal Code:M6K3M1
Tech Country:CA
Tech Phone:+1.4165312084
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+1.4165315584
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:dnstech@domaindirect.com
Name Server:NS1.DOMAINDIRECT.COM
Name Server:NS2.DOMAINDIRECT.COM
Name Server:NS3.DOMAINDIRECT.COM
Name Server: 

Host spamis.org not found: 2(SERVFAIL)
Host www.spamis.org not found: 2(SERVFAIL)

on 2005-06-03:
spamis.org had address 216.40.33.117
www.spamis.org had address 216.40.33.117