I'm Being Lynched By SPAMCOP

My Letter Against Unjustified Web Discrimination

by Roland Kriewaldt

Realitycheckers.com has been sending out the monthly Get Real Newsletter since 1999. In July 2004, my monthly newsletter delivery was interrupted by automated web filters targetting the server on which my website was hosted. The following is an email I sent to Spamcop.net, one of the "web policing" companies, who mistakenly declared me a spam offender by association.

Hi there, SPAMCOP. I have a complaint. Unfortunately, I only found this contact information in your "paid service" section - not exactly convenient for those like myself who are being censored and just trying to get some justice. Please forward this until it gets to the appropriate party: someone who cares, and makes policy decisions. For my part, I will publish this letter on my website for educational purposes.

My name is Roland Kriewaldt. I have a website named "Realitycheckers.com" which I've been running since 1999. Last year I switched servers because I found a hosting company which offered better services for less than what I was paying at the time.

I've been happy with their service. When I call, they answer the phone, when I email, they write back, and they have contact information for the general public, unlike your site, which looks more like a government maze of beaurocratic diversions to wear me out so I'll give up the fight. Perhaps this way we'll call our hosting company instead to complain about a problem that YOUR filtering system software is creating.

I'm being lynched by SPAMCOP. I run a legitimate, helpful service, writing poignant articles and sending a monthly newsletter since October, 1999. I have NEVER sent spam. My last newsletter - which goes out to less than 1,000,000 people, might I add - was rejected. I was getting 50% returns as undeliverable from mail servers out there using your service, and others I assume. What's the logic in this sweeping prejudice? Well, as I included in my newsletter on my fourth and fifth attempted mailout: "...it is as though an entire high rise building is being arrested because they found a burgler living on the second floor." This is guilt by association, without evidence. I can prove my innocence - where is the judge? Or even a secretary in the front lobby for that matter? Realitycheckers.com is innocent - why am I behind bars?

I have wisely chosen a hosting service that is better for me both economically and for customer service. The inherent injustice of SpamCop is that it is promoting a form of "web racism", dictating who can and who can't send email by spreading false accusations based upon a website's association with a blacklisted server. If 99% of us are legit, then we all go down because of the 1% that isn't. This is all just a little too "McCarthy" for me.

My hosting server is not impeding my progress/business - you are, whoever you are, Mr. Anonymous Enforcer of Email Prejudice. I will add that I hate SPAM. I was getting a lot of it. Then, a year ago, I simply changed my email address and now I receive .001% of what I used to. That was my answer. I did not sell my computer, or give up my website, or change webhosts. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but it's not working if it's keeping people like me, and what I have to offer, out of circulation. That is not just.

You *must* consider filtering on a website basis. If this can't be done, then maybe your approach of throwing out the baby with the bath water is not the best business strategy. Even though it may be lucrative, it is not always right: to paint the world either black or white, and then randomly categorize people as being either one or the other.

Logically, if I were a hosting company, how could I possibly control a spammer except after the fact, when the damage has been done? If someone calls me up, gives me their credit card information and says "I want a web account" - how would I screen them as being either legitimate or just a 24 hr. "hit and run" operation? Reverse your role for a moment: how would you run a web hosting service that screens for good guys and bad guys simply based upon a quick phone call and an electronic transaction? Can YOU answer that? And if you can, please offer your suggestion to those companies that you're forcing into that tight corner.

It's obvious a spammer will go to a cheap or free service to do his dirty work - but so will any smart small business man on a budget. Are you suggesting that we should all sign up with expensive, often over-priced hosting companies so that the discount hosting companies are put out of business, thus putting the squeeze on all but the most dedicated scam artists? That approach won't work either. Somebody making 3 million a year on spam scams doesn't mind paying a little extra for the privilege.

Let's face it, this isn't going to be easy. But this is not Nazi Germany, 1933 either. Let's be reasonable. A reply of any kind - besides "Message failed" would be nice.