Comments from Mark Mumma

Spamroll provided some commentary a week ago on the Mark Mumma lawsuit against, and now Mark has been kind enough to provide some additional insight.

I would like to point a few things out before you catch it.

First and foremost, I qualified the statements by saying I could be way off base. This qualification was based on the tone of the editorial, which was simple suspicion, not direct fact.

Mark has made it extremely clear that the notion that he might have seeded’s list is “so far the dumbest arguement he has heard.”

My retort: Mark, you seem to be spending a heck of a lot of time making your case, setting up websites, pursuing lots of parties, playing up a lot of PR. What you don’t get is that this, in the minds of some, creates the illusion that this may have become a fun game for you, and potential a lucrative one at that. The comments include quotes about how the state law provides for big damages in reference to daily spam activity. Nice money, if you can get it. Mark, you may have irrefutable proof of the lawlessness, but you should be careful about how you present yourself. I would like to hear what other “dumb” comments have been heard, as well.

In addition, I stand firm on the idea that if you are going to continue pursuing legal action against each and every spammer you find, make sure you have a sizable kitty to fund that process. I suspect more retaliation is on the way.

I also want to thank Mark for compiling a short on what his core business is, as many other posts did not clarify it.

Read Mark’s comments at Spamroll: Spammer sues spammed.