[Mimedefang] Filtering idea for stock pump&dumps
WBrown at e1b.org
WBrown at e1b.org
Mon Jul 2 14:19:51 EDT 2007
Ben Kamen wrote on 07/02/2007 01:30:29 PM:
> That's a good point. If the company whose stock is being pumped could be
held
> liable for the SPAM. Doesn't the CAN-SPAM (in the US anyway) cover for
that?
>
> The spammer isn't just guilty, the company represented in the spam is
> guilty of spamming too.
That not always the case. See
http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/picks/archive/2007/pick0601.htm
The one who wins is the scammer that bought alot of the stock up front,
for cheap, and is hyping it so the price goes up and he can unload at a
profit. In the long run, the company's stock price is back where normal
market forces would have it.
> I realize the next question is: where is the company based and what
> are the laws
> there, but the exchanges holding the company liable is a great
idea.There's a
> place where present laws could possibly apply a little pressure.
Without tying the spam to the company, that would be rather unrealistic.
For that matter, you would need to be able to prove that any large trader
in a stock was responsible for the pump and dump spam. Not likely given
the state of the art in spam's traceability.
More information about the MIMEDefang
mailing list