Cris Mooney 
A Personal 
Web Page:  

"Of course, that's just my opinion, and I may be full of shit" 
- Dennis Miller - 

Since this opinion was considered in great detail, it will be difficult to change my mind. However, it's not impossible. I am always open to reason. I welcome well thoughtful, logical, response. 

Recorded Nov 8, 1998 

Spam Spam

Correspondence with a spam hating extremist, showing the hipocracy. This correspondence is in support of ramblings I wrote on this page. 

From: [SpamSpamMan] 
Subject: Offence under US code Title 47, Sec 227(b) (1) (C)  

I have recently received UNSOLICITED and UNWANTED junk e-mail from an individual who appears to be using your site. A copy of that mail is attached herewith. Junk Mail is now regarded as the same as unwanted and unsolicited junk faxes and telemarketing calls - all of which are now ILLEGAL under US federal law:  

By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b) (1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment, punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for EACH violation.  

Please ensure this is stopped NOW. You have been put on notice. If you confirm to me promptly that effective action has been taken against those persons responsible, I will not take the matter further on this occasion.  

If you do not provide me with such confirmation in a timely manner, or if ANY further UNSOLICITED or UNWANTED junk mail should be received from your site, I will instruct my attorney to issue a writ WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE, and the matter will then be pursued under federal law. I will separately notify your upstream providers as they may also be liable for violations originating from your site.  

--- Copy of offending material follows --- 
>Subj: .requested information 
>Date: 10/20/98 3:35:03 AM Canada Central Standard Time From: 

>Thank you for your interest in our training Course.  

[Actual Entire Spam Letter Here For Brevity]

From: [Me(Cris Mooney)]  
Hello [SpamSpamMan]:  

You are wrong. The mail did not come from us, nor through us.  

If you are going to react so violently to unsolicited email, then you should learn a little more about email and how to determine its source and routing (you are wrong). I don't appreciate your approach towards us, who are a totally innocent uninvolved party here, any more than you appreciate getting unsolicited email. Perhaps you should consider if in your zealous persuit of some personal objective you are becoming as offensive as those you strive to thwart.  

Certainly, we are sympathetic that you are getting unsolicited email. Unfortunately, this is not coming from our site, nor passing through it, and thus there is nothing we can do. We have had the same sort of complaint from other AOL users; about a dozen so far (indicating that there are probably hundreds of cases). In each case the message has been similar (" you requested..."), but the "actual" header info has varied. This is a very strong sign that these messages are being forged in an attempt to avoid "spam" blockers. Of course, no other complaintants have been as rude as you.  

From what we have seen, some rogue sender is simply adding false "header" information to the end of their message - likely to confuse recipients. Anyone could append such text to the end of any message. If you would take the time to learn about the subject which angers you so greatly, you would know that header information never appears at the end of a message, is not "repeated" over and over, and would have a full valid date (the date of the false headers at the end has contained no day of the month, just Oct 1998). All fake, something anyone could type into the end of the message if they wanted to. The real header, shown at the top of the message indicates that the message came from somewhere else (and you have not provided all the details headers required to track it). Almost certainly, this information is forged as well, and not worth tracing. You might wish to contact AOL on the matter if you are really concerned - going back to the original message they may be able to trace the real message ID given at the top of the message.  

Legally, I am not sure there is anything that can be done at this point - even by AOL. Personally, I am certain that your high and mighty self serving interpretation of US Code Title 47 is extreme.  

Morally, I think you should take a look at yourself and the methods you are employing in your self appointed quest, before you mount your pedestal next time. You have railed against me, sending me offensive UNSOLICITED and UNWANTED junk mail. Next time, if you still think you are so great, you ought to get it right.  

Your activity is the very reason vigalanty activity is improper. Thank God you didn't have a gun. Perhaps you should leave the law to those who have a clue and do your job instead, you misguided rogue.  

Cris Mooney 

From: [SpamSpamMan] 
well, mistakenly sent then, using an automated spam response  

would like to say I'm sorry, sorry  

spam is the give that keeps on giving 

From: [Me]  
Hello [SpamSpamMan]:  

>well, mistakenly sent then, using an automated spam response 
>would like to say I'm sorry, sorry 
>spam is the give that keeps on giving  

Thank you, and I appreciate your comments. However, I still think you should reconsider your methods (something you have not indicated you are doing). Your apology does not negligate your actions. In order to fight crime, one is not justified in using any behavior they feel appropriate. The Spam did not keep giving, you gave. I sense an amount of cop out for your own behavior, and would rather hear that you will reconsider your methods. If you are still using an automated spam response, then I do not consider your apology genuine.  

Many people who feel strongly about an issue step over the line and become the same as what they deplore. I hope you will give this great consideration now that it has been brought to your attention. Just like your message DEMANDED attention and action when you were offended, I suggest that you might consider the same level of action you DEMAND of those who offend you.  

Cris Mooney 

From: [SpamSpamMan] 
The apology is genuine, the spam response WAS changed to kinder gentler response. Somehow your domain was included in the original spam as listed below.  

>>>Received: from by with SMTP; Oct 98  
>>>>12:17:46 -0400  
>>>>X-Sender: (Unverified)  

I know you're ticked at me and actually I'm glad, it is uplifting to know that somebody is on the ball and paying attention to this. If you give spammers the same attention you gave this then you are making a difference.  

rest assured my crack staff of attorneys has been called off 

From: [Me]  
I have to admit I already have some respect for you for having listened to my strongly worded ramblings and having already made some effort to change your operation. Moreover, you did so without loosing you cool; pretty neat. After all, "this is just my opinion, and I may be full of shit [-Dennis Miller]".  

That opinions are strong...and I am compelled to champion them:  

I appreciate your switching to a "kinder and gentler response"; at least it is something. However, your "automatic response" works poorly and is what needs to be changed. If you will read my original note you will discover that "[our] domain was included in the original spam as listed" was not part of headers. To reiterate: it was simply part of the text of the Spam, contained at the end of the text of the message. The above quote is not a header, but simply some text in the message.  

As a result, your automated response system ACTS IN CONTRADICTION WITH YOUR OWN POLICIES by sending unsolicited mail. This is on par with spam.  

You are wrong to use your comment "[our] domain was included in the original spam as listed" to imply that your automatic response was somehow justified. This is a sleezy misleading argumentative technique, and I take offense to your using it. I do not in any way accept this defense as being legitimate, and simply continue to believe that you do not understand the point. Our email address being embedded in the text of an email message does not give you any entitlement to send us mail, never mind scathing mail.  

You have made a mistake when taking the law into your own hands, by incorrectly sending me mail, and you continue to defend your technique despite my having explained that the quote above WAS NOT A HEADER. You might as well have shot the person next to your enemy and then said "well, my gun was not all that accurate, so its somewhat OK; next time I'll just use a smaller gun so the bystander is not killed when I miss".  

You take a high ground, while operating on the low ground after your attention has been drawn to your techniques, and thus I stand against you on this issue. Hypocrisy is a very low form of existence.  

Spammers at least are spammers, and don't take a better than thou attitude. Of course, anonymous, false advertising, or rip off artist individuals, using spam or not, are on par with hypocrites and should be punished when possible, without using an "inaccurate" gun.  

Spam is legal at this point, despite your weak attempts to extrapolate from laws that do not cover the situation. And, frankly, spam doesn't bother me. People who take a high and mighty attitude, especially employing techniques that contradict their own platforms, piss me off.  

As for spam: I get far more junk mail via the US post office (subsidized by my 32 cents, since junk mail is a loss leader for the post office) which I have to process to the trash, and telemarketing calls, than I do junk email. Certainly, I would have no problem with individuals enforcing some rules to prosecute anonymous mail senders, false claims, and other corrupt techniques. But I have no problem with legitimate mass email, and I am further bothered by individuals who attempt to paint spam with a broad stroke. Thus, you offend me two-fold.  

Your message would not have bothered me if it didn't take such a better than thou attitude.  

Finally, even though I do not like your message, I strongly defend your right to send it...just like I _accept_ legitimate spam, though I may not like either.  

>rest assured my crack staff of attorneys has been called off  

Like I was worried. You think I was bothered you would waste that money?  

Waste your money sending your "hypothetical" dogs after the original mail sender who is probably forging legitimate headers and misleading readers by appending false headers to the end of the message text. They are probably criminal for real infractions, not for "spam", and I would be happy to see them prosecuted as long as innocent bystanders remain just that...standing.  

Again, in the end, I have to admit I already have some respect for you for having listened to my strongly worded ramblings and having already made some effort to change your operation. After all, "this is just my opinion, and I may be full of shit [-Dennis Miller]".  

Cris Mooney 

At this point SpamSpamMan and I agreed that my point was made, and that he had pity for any fool who might mistakenly fall in my path. Yes, I say, SpamSpamMan was a bright fellow, just misguided in my opinion.