The Spam-a-lama Ding-Dongs
Mime-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v118.2)
From: Peter Langston <psl>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 96 23:01:28 -0800
Subject: The Spam-a-lama Ding-Dongs
From: Dan Weinreb <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> An article in today's Sacramento Bee described how AOL won a ruling in
> Philidelphia on Monday stating, in effect, that Cyber Promotions and
> its owner, Sanford Wallace, the so-called SPAM KING, did not have the
> constitutional right to send spam, or junk, e-mail.
This story got a lot of press coverage. Philadelphia's legal newspaper had
a big story on it, with a picture of AOL's legal team on the cover,
including my brother David (yay!) who is spending a tremendous amount of
time on this case.
Actually, evidently Sanford Wallace isn't just the owner, he *is* Cyber
Promotions. It's a one man shop, not counting their outside attorneys of
> AOL had, in
> response to its subscribers' numerous complaints, blocked the domain,
> gathered all undelivered e-mail from that blocked domain, and shipped it
> back to Cyber Promotions in bulk.
According to my brother, this last point isn't actually true. Cyber claims
that AOL "e-mail bombed" it, and this got mentioned in an offhand reference
in the court opinion, but it never happened.
Here's the very latest development: Cyber is seeking to file an amended
complaint claiming, of all things, that because AOL has "pop-up" advertising
screens on its service, it "competes" in the direct electronic advertising
market with Cyber, and that by blocking Cyber, AOL is violating the
I'm sure that if they actually file this, we'll be seeing it in the news.
If so, you heard it here first.
© 1996 Peter Langston