A Weblog About Topics and Issues Discussed in the Book Spam Kings by Brian McWilliams

« Hardcore Islam | Main | Detoothing a Barracuda »

April 3, 2006

Verizon pays for spam blockade

A settlement has been proposed in the class action lawsuit over Verizon's aggressive spam blocking. Under the deal, affected Verizon Internet Services customers may receive up to $49 if they failed to receive "legitimate email" between October 2004 and May 2005 from Asia or Europe.

Notice of the proposed settlement was emailed to some Verizon subscribers over the weekend. Information is also available online at emailblockingsettlement.com.

The lawsuit stems from Verizon's anti-spam strategy of briefly blocking all email from large swaths of IP addresses, effectively cordoning off entire countries from emailing Verizon customers.

Under the proposed deal, Verizon has revised its blocking policy but reserves the right to implement blacklisting "as long as a serious threat remains."

Verizon got kicked around pretty hard last year over this practice. I was a bit surprised that such a big ISP was resorting to such unselective blockades, which are used quite frequently by administrators of smaller email systems. But I'm a little baffled when Internet users blame their ISPs for trying too hard to protect them from spam.

To be sure, Verizon certainly isn't perfect in blocking incoming spam. But unlike some other big US providers, they're not on the Spamhaus list of the world's worst spam havens for facilitating outbound spam. In fact, the ISP currently has only nine listings on the Spamhaus block list, compared to 217 for MCI. So, in my book, the Abuse team at Verizon seems to be getting the job done.

I also continue to be amazed at the ire I see directed at ISPs, including even free webmail providers like Gmail, for misdirecting legitimate emails into users' spam folders (aka "false positives"). Folks, the delivery of email, especially of the free kind, isn't guaranteed. Blame the spammers, not ISPs, when you find yourself caught in the crossfire of the spam wars.

Oh, and Kohn, Swift & Graf, the attorneys for the class, have asked for $1,400,000 for handling the Verizon case.

Posted by brian at April 3, 2006 10:02 AM

Comments

> Folks, the delivery of
> email, especially of the free
> kind, isn't guaranteed.

Free or not, that is a fallacy. If mail was rejected at the SMTP level, then you are covered. But if you accept but fail to deliver, you are at risk. It has always been like this since 1986 when the US EPCA privisions for electronic mail and online hosting were added.

Only the big systems felt the blunt of the laws. No one is going to bother with some systems, so small system who do this think it is normal practice. it is not.

Verizon is a big company and when they hire young operators to run the network that don't understand the laws and begin to go overboard, then they put the company at risk.

But there is nothing new here. In anything is new, it is that you should expect to happen more against stupid setups who think putting up a mail system is fun and games.

Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com


Posted by: Hector Santos at April 5, 2006 9:32 AM

Verizon is a big company and when they hire young operators to run the network that don't understand the laws and begin to go overboard, then they put the company at risk.

Yea, overzealousness of mail admins and antispamming roups have hurt many end-users and businesses of all sizes. It has become quite frustrating for many of us out here in the battle against Spam. I have a gut feeling some of this knowledge you posted about Electronic Mail guidelines is not even known by some older seasoned professionals who work on mail systems.

Posted by: Anonymouses at April 6, 2006 4:43 AM

You have to be zealous to fight spam, in my opinion.

Posted by: Eik C at April 6, 2006 9:12 PM

Please send me the information on how I can register for the law suit against Verizon. I am very severely affected by them blocking my e-mails. I have also sent you an e-mail through my verizon e-mail address, but please do not reply to this address, because I will not get it. They are refusing to cancel my account, so I have to pay them for nothing. Please help.
Neisha Bruno

Posted by: Neisha Bruno at May 2, 2006 9:39 PM