Comments on: What Exactly Is a “Spammer”?

By: Privacy Law

Privacy Law — Wed, 02 May 2007 20:04:58 +0000

“If so, and if the cruise company sent an unsolicited email to Mumma, then they meet the widely held definition of a “spammer”; hence, no leg to stand on in a defamation suit.”

Apparently the jury felt otherwise.

By: Mark W. Mumma, the WebGuy

Mark W. Mumma, the WebGuy — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:16:50 +0000

You’d think!

By: Travis G.

Travis G. — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 22:52:08 +0000

Isn’t the widely accepted definition of “spam” considered to be unsolicited commercial email (UCE)? If so, and if the cruise company sent an unsolicited email to Mumma, then they meet the widely held definition of a “spammer”; hence, no leg to stand on in a defamation suit.

By: What

What — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:17:25 +0000

I dont understand why reporters report without reading the case background on this. Though I hate spam and spammers, according to the facts of the case this company did not spam Mumma which is the main reason his lawsuit was thrown out in the Fedaeral and the Appeals court. Check out Mummas site ‘Sue a Spammer’. I think you will realize that this guy teaches people how to trap companies and make money. He demanded over $6k from the company to go away quitely because he told them he can sue them for spam. When they told him to go fly a kite he began an assault of their name. So they sued him. What a surprise. This bozo should have stuck to smaller companies that would have paid him to go away. You make your own decisions but for reference I suggest you read the case facts before you go on this reporters insight.

By: www.SLAPPSUIT.com

www.SLAPPSUIT.com — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:13:10 +0000

This movie does not yet have an ending.

This movie is not yet rated.

By: Mark W. Mumma, the WebGuy

Mark W. Mumma, the WebGuy — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:12:04 +0000

Grab some popcorn and kick back on the sofa. This story ain’t over.

http://www.SLAPPSUIT.com/

By: Jim Graves

Jim Graves — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:44:31 +0000

What’s more disturbing is that CAN-SPAM preempts stronger state laws, and that weak federal legislation overriding strong state legislation is becoming something of an infosec law trend. We escaped 2006 without a federal version of California’s SB-1386 breach notification law, but the working copy of the federal law was weak and declawed the state versions.

By: The Continental Op

The Continental Op — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 02:47:53 +0000

Mark Mumma, head of Mummagraphics, called John Lawless, the general counsel of Omega and instructed him to stop sending email. Lawless said the emails would stop.

Well, what did he expect from a lawyer named “Lawless”?

By: Syd

Syd — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 21:35:49 +0000

Why would it be defamatory to call a spammer a spammer?