To: [....]@haledorr.com
Subject: Re: spambag.org's threats to Blacklist Fusepoint Management Services, Inc.
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:22:00 -0500

Mr. Matuschak,

The reason I have not responded to Mr. Richardson's letter is for the simple 
fact that I've yet to receive it.  Since it is dated only a day earlier than 
your demand letter, perhaps it was only sent by first class mail, and I will 
receive it in a few days.  Thank you for attaching an extra copy of it, this 
will allow me the opportunity to respond to its contents as well.

In the event that Fusepoint's customers continue to spam my mail servers I 
certainly intend to block their entire network from sending me E-mail. I own 
and I am fully responsible for the day-to-day operation of my mail servers; 
it is my understanding that I am entitled to manage my private property in 
whatever manner I see fit, as long as it does not violate any law.  I am not 
aware of any legal requirement to accept mail from your client's network. If 
you care to direct me to a specific statute that obligates me to accept 
E-mail from your client, I will certainly consider it.

However, I reject your claim that I "assist[ed] or encourage[d] other to 
block all e-mail messages" from your client's network.  I do not believe 
that I have ever stated any such intention; my only action to date is to 
publish a notice on my web site (which, as you've noted is called 
"spambag.org") the fact that I have received unsolicited junk E-mail from 
your client's network.  I believe that my right to do so -- to speak and 
freely publish my opinions -- enjoys strong constitutional protections.  At 
no point have I ever represented or attempted to represent that "every IP 
address associated with Fusepoint is the actual or likely source of 
unsolicited junk E-mail".  As clearly stated on the main home page, 
http://www.spambag.org: "spambag.org is my personal list of networks who I 
block from sending me mail".  Nothing more, nothing less. I also happen to 
believe that I am fully entitled to do that.  The remaining claims in your 
demand letter are irrelevant, since they were based on an incorrect 
understanding of the nature of my web site.

To address the points raised in Mr. Richardson's letter:  I believe that I 
am fully capable to "judge whether communications sent out by GotMarketing 
... constitute spam" for the simple reason that I was a direct recipient of 
such communications.  "Spam" is commonly defined as "unsolicited junk 
E-mail".  I did not solicit GotMarketing's communications, they were junk, 
and they were E-mailed to me.

Your client's claim that the entire /24 netblock is blocked from sending me 
mail is not correct.  As of now, the only IP address listed on spambag.org 
is 199.243.151.134.  I categorically reject your additional claims of 
defamation.  To the best of my knowledge all statements I published on 
spambag.org regarding your client are accurate and truthful.  If you believe 
that certain, specific published statements are not accurate, please 
identify them and I will promptly correct any factual errors brought to my 
attention.

Your client created their current predicament by either accepting what they 
knew was a spam-based marketer at the outset; or by failing to adequately 
review their potential customers to determine whether their marketing plans 
included spamming innocent people like me.[1]  When caught in the act your  
client retreated behind a supposed 45 day termination clause, in a contract 
undoubtedly prepared by an expensive lawyer, which amounts to a 45 day 
license to spam.  I ask you if one of Fusepoints's custmers was calling your 
firm every day with telemarketing, or sending you spam to your e-mail box, 
or sending out child pornography through its network, would you expect them 
to allow it to continue for a full 45 days?  Your client can resolve this by 
pulling the plug on its customer's noxious activity.  I am sure someone in 
your huge firm of attorneys can figure out a legal way to do that.  Until it 
stops the spam, I plan to exercise my private property rights to exclude it 
from my network, and to exercise my free rights and let others, who choose 
to visit my site,  know about it.

Sincerely,

[1] I would like to point out that there several widely-known resources on 
the Internet that attempt to track known spammers.  The three that come to 
mind are the Spamhaus project (http://www.spamhaus.org),  SPEWS 
(http://www.spews.org), and WIREHUB 
(http://basic.wirehub.nl/blackholes.html).  I do not necessarily recommend 
or endorse any of them, I would like to only bring their existence to your 
client's attention.  Your client should themselves evaluate these resources, 
and draw their own conclusions.  I note that all three of the most 
popular public anti-spam blacklists have your client's /24 netblock 
listed.[2]

[2] Only after reviewing this response, and all the information at my 
disposal, did I finally understood the nature of your client's erroneous 
claim that the entire /24 netblock is listed by spambag.org, when the 
reality is that I only blocked a single IP address from sending mail to my 
network.  If your client's customers in that netblock are experiencing their 
mail blocked is because those three anti-spam sites have blacklisted the 
entire /24 netblock, and I have nothing to do with it.

Good luck.  I note that SPEWS is based in Siberia, Russia;  Spamhaus is in 
the United Kingdom;  and WIREHUB is in the Netherlands.