Court sides with alleged 'vacation' spammer

Iria · Nov 29, 2006, 12:44 AM

Source: News.com
________
When antispam activist Mark Mumma received unsolicited e-mails advertising cruise vacations two years ago, he posted a report on his Web site and threatened to sue Omega World Travel.

But Mumma met with an unpleasant surprise: He was the one sued in federal court by Omega World Travel and its subsidiary Cruise.com, which demanded $3.8 million in damages for defamation. Mumma, who owns Oklahoma-based MummaGraphics and runs a one-man Web design and hosting shop at Webguy.com, filed counterclaims against the companies and CEO Gloria Bohan.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the alleged spammers. In a little-noticed opinion issued in mid-November, a three-judge panel acknowledged the e-mail messages in question may have included a false Internet address and a nonworking "From:" address, but concluded that they nevertheless were permitted under the federal antispam law known as the Can-Spam Act.

**temeteus82** · Nov 29, 2006, 08:32 AM

Yeah I know that USA has good spam laws! They should take a look our spam law! Then internet would have less spam!

Nov 29, 2006, 12:44 AM	#1
Iria DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 7,275 Rep Power: 89	Court sides with alleged 'vacation' spammer Source: News.com ________ When antispam activist Mark Mumma received unsolicited e-mails advertising cruise vacations two years ago, he posted a report on his Web site and threatened to sue Omega World Travel. But Mumma met with an unpleasant surprise: He was the one sued in federal court by Omega World Travel and its subsidiary Cruise.com, which demanded $3.8 million in damages for defamation. Mumma, who owns Oklahoma-based MummaGraphics and runs a one-man Web design and hosting shop at Webguy.com, filed counterclaims against the companies and CEO Gloria Bohan. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the alleged spammers. In a little-noticed opinion issued in mid-November, a three-judge panel acknowledged the e-mail messages in question may have included a false Internet address and a nonworking "From:" address, but concluded that they nevertheless were permitted under the federal antispam law known as the Can-Spam Act.