There are lots of other hits about this as well. I’m curious as to the reaction of the teeming millions…
Hell yea! Get em EarthLink! Kill! Kill!
Sweet. Send 'em to jail.
Yay! Spammers must pay for their crimes against the internet.
I’d be willing to pay $10 a month on top of my DSL charges, if that $10 went directly to the prosecution of spammers.
Before we celebrate, it seems necessary to take note of this key quote: '"[S]pammers who brazenly disregard the law will wind up in jail," Baker said in a statement." So this guy is going to court not because he’s an evil spammer in particular, but because he broke the law during the process of becoming an evil spammer. It’s an important distinction to make, because the case doesn’t necessarily set the precedent that ALL spammers are doing something illegal and should be punished.
If only… 
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do come out of lurk mode for the stangest reasons, why do you ask?
Let him rot in jail - I hope he gets ‘Bubba’ for a cell-mate. Oops, this isn’t the Pit - wonder if you’d like the mods to move it there so people can really say what they think? 
Great news.
Were you being sarcastic? If you were, they should pay.
Spammers should be treated like the rotton pig vomit they are.
Imagine using your phone and in the middle of talking to your friend, you can interupted by message for 350 hours of AOL! It’s the same thing when your on the net and get interupted.
You know, I wonder if spammers know/knew how they’re ruining it for themselves. If they’d kept it kinda low key, maybe one or two messages per day, I don’t think anyone would care.
<python>
Bring out yer dead!
KLANK
Bring out yer dead!
KLANK
</python>
Aye, it does my heart good to see the wankers of the world get their comeuppance.
Of course, only one of millions … <heavy sigh>
There are (at least) two primary spam fronts. On one hand we have people like Carmack who are basically doing whatever they can, regardless of who’s identity and credit profile is used, to make themselves a little money on the side by spamming.
But then we also have big business drooling at the cost/profit margin that is associated with spam, and lobbying like crazy to keep it as one of their marketing options.
The next thing I’d like to see are a few of the big e-mail marketer eyesores brought to their knees, but I’m not holding my breath yet.
I certainly hope that more cases like Carmack’s are on the horizon, but untill the legislators can be brought up to speed, and they know enough about the technology to make informed decisions…it will be a long and tedious fight.
The pit? Sounds like fun to me.
I’m a big proponent of free speech, and I think the courts and legislatures should be careful about restricting anybody’s rights to send messages via the Internet. I also think that businesses deserve the right to advertise for their products.
However, commercial speech has always had less protection than non-commercial speech, and I think it would be possible to draft legislation that would make the most egregious forms of SPAM illegal. For one, it should be illegal to send commercial e-mail with a deceptive subject line or return address. That right there would eliminate the majority of SPAM. Second, all commercial e-mail should be required to contain “ADV:” in the subject line. If people want to read it, they can. If they don’t, it can go right into the trash bin.
The problem with SPAM is not that it is unwanted commercial e-mail. The problem is that the spammers use deceptive practices to trick people into opening it and send hundreds of copies to the same address (with minor variations) in an effort to get around filters. I think it is perfectly all right to make those deceptive practices illegal and then prosecute the offenders. If their products are so great, thsy should need to rely on deception to sell them.
Barry
Wasn’t that a Russ Meyer film?
Yes, from his less-known “I.S.P.” period.
Since junk fax is illegal, why isn’t junk e-mail?
I agree, but this only solves half the problem. This would allow recipients to filter spam, but the ISPs would still have to carry it. (It would not be acceptable for advertising to be automatically filtered by ISPs.) Spammers should have to pay for their spam in one way or another. The TOS of most ISPs forbid mass mailings, which is why so many spammers forge headers and rip off accounts. ISPs that allow spamming can be blocked. If spammers have to pay, that would reduce or eliminate the profitability of spamming, or at least allow some fee sharing arrangement to be made to pay for it.
Making it illegal to forge headers for commercial mail would solve a lot of problems. It should be legal for private mail for privacy reasons - otherwise remailers might be forbidden.
i believe that junk faxes are illegal because they put a burden on the receiver (paper costs)- the same reason why telemarketers cannot call you on your cell (incurs charges through your ‘minutes’).
i guess the argument is that e-mail spam is annoying, but it does no real financial harm.
Actually, spam is as much of a burden on the receiver (and the receiver and senders’ ISPs) as junk faxing and telemarketing via cell phone or collect call.
Resources that you pay a monthly fee for are used up by spam, wasted by messages that you don’t want in the first place.
This is a good spamfighting resource with relevant information, including the status of legislation: