XS4ALL Wins Anti-Spam Suit

johnpc writes: "In a court case started by Dutch ISP XS4ALL, a judge ruled yesterday that spam outfit AbFab is forbidden to send spam to all subscribers of said ISP. The judge writes: 'The essential point is that XS4ALL has no legal conveyance obligation. (...) XS4ALL does not wish to convey messages which its customers have not asked to receive and therefore does not wish these messages to be delivered through its systems, in this case from Abfab. The question of whether the unsolicited sending of large volumes of advertising messages by e-mail should be referred to as 'spam' or 'electronic direct marketing' is not relevant to this dispute.' This is obviously not a solution to the spam problem within the Netherlands, but it is a step in the right direction. You can read an english abstract of the ruling. Unfortunately, most of the actual case documents are in dutch, some of which are still being translated."

Comments

Here it is: the first of many

[zbuffered]

Expect to see more of this on Slashdot, which will post basically anything spam-related in the news. Companies sue other companies for spam. Your ISP fights for you. Things work out...
Gotta win one of these in the US to make it a reality though.

Re:Here it is: the first of many

[cheezehead]

Gotta win one of these in the US to make it a reality though.

That's right, the Netherlands are situated in 'unreality'. Hello? I think you mean that a similar case has to be won in the US to affect the amount of spam you get when you live in the US.

I'm sorry to be complaining here, but I get so tired of Americans who think the world ends north of Minnesota and south of Texas.

One little ruling in an insignificant country like the Netherlands does not change the world, but it's a start.

A very effective cure for spam

[Anonymous Coward]

I developed a system which I run on our Beowulf cluster of Linux boxes. It monitors connections on port 25, and rejects any that match any of the following criteria: originator is on cable or DSL: originator has an open relay: originator is running servers on port greater than 1024. Works great, spam has dropped and so has total cost of ownership; our eCommerce bussiness is thriving. Just another reason why Open Source is good for the post-September 11 economy.

The ruling is not about SPAM.

[www.sorehands.com]

The ruling is more about rights of an ISP to control its own system. The approaches what the appeals court ruled in Intel v. Hamibi.

Similar rulings in the United States would start detailing the landscape of rights of website owners to keep SPAMMERS from scraping.

Re:The ruling is not about SPAM.

[tomstdenis]

Except Hamibi doesn't have a case. He was clearly abusing a PRIVATELY owned server.

Just because a system is publicly accessible doesn't mean its "public domain property".

What about stores in a Mall? I can just walk in off the street, does that I mean I can do what I want in the store?

I think "Hamibi" is a good example of people trying to make causes [like Kevin Mitnick another criminal]. I mean how can you do something that at the least is clearly bad faith [if not illegal] then sit back and cry your rights are violated when they stop you from abusing other peoples equipment?

Tom

No, its called 'Friction'

[The Mutant]

Currently spam is frictionless; that is, there is almost zero marginal cost associated with spamming, hence the constant increase in junk email.

Something like this in the US would undoubtedly increase the cost of doing business for spammers aned their clients.

Some spamming companies would get caught, have judegements filed against them, and have to pay up. Korean mail relays notwithstanding.

No, I don't agree with your assertion that a judegement like this in the US would cause spam to "drop ZERO PERCENT".

I'm willing to listen to your arguement, but as you've presented it its baseless.

Re:Great, what about the rest of the planet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I have a XS4all account since 1996 and am soon abandoning it because it gets way too much spam. The bulk of it comes down the pipe from dial-up accounts from the biggest American ISPs and Asian open relays. The ruling hasn't stopped that.

Blame for my innoncence for using my XS4all address when posting on Usenet during 1996 and 1997 and putting up on my website, but spam wasn't such an issue then.

Re:This is such flaming bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, your parallel is flawed in that the US Supreme Court has held since 1970 (Rowan v. USPS) that anyone may prohibit anyone from mailing them anything. All one has to do is file the appropriate paperwork with the Post Office. The PO then sends a prohibitory order to the mailer, who must then delete the name, address, etc. from their lists. They can't send you anything for 5 years. The court's ruling was quite interesting and it blew all of the Snail Mail spammer's arguments right out of the water...

See also - the federal junk fax ban... PAssed because it costs virtually nothing to send faxes, but passes the cost onto the recipient in the form of paper, toner, maintenance of phone line, inability to use that line for business, etc...

I fail to see why that same 1970 case doesn't apply to email, or why spammers ought to be able to send me anything without my express double-opt-in consent. If I want their crap, I'll search for it and ask for it. I'll verify it. But don't you dare presume to *think* that you know my preferences or desires. Don't you presume to think that wasting even a femtosecond of my time is your right. I have the absolute right to be let alone and fully intend to enjoy it - so keep your fucken opinions to yourself and those who request them. Leave me out of it. I ought not to have to delete anything - there's 500 million people on the net - if even 10% of those people sent me an email every day, I'd never get anything done.

God damned spammers ought to be taken out and shot.

Re:This isn't as good as it sounds.

[Yhg1s]

Actually, no, this isn't true. The quoted pieces of the ruling do not show it, but XS4ALL claims to have the legal obligation of delivering all mail (unless otherwise indicated by the user(s) themselves) and the complete ruling actually stipulates this:

The essential point is that XS4ALL has no legal conveyance obligation. It has nevertheless given its users and/or customers and/or subscribers (hereinafter referred to as customers) a commitment that it will convey all e-mail messages and has thus imposed a conveyance obligation upon itself.

Please read the entire story at www.xs4all.nl/uk. The court ruled 'no legal conveyance obligation', yes, which is indeed a pity. It is up to each ISP to declare that for themselves, and up to each individual to make sure they choose an ISP that does exactly that :-)

Re:This isn't as good as it sounds.

[Arlet]

Very true. Also, they have a very interesting policy that they encourage you to crack their systems, and as long as you don't destroy anything, and tell them about the security hole you've found, they'll refund part of your subscription as a reward.

Re:This is not the victory that many of you think

[Yhg1s]

You are looking at this from the wrong side. ISPs were already perfectly in their rights, from a legal viewpoint, to block whatever and whoever they want. They are private companies *without* special governmental or legal privileges or duties (contrary to postal companies, for example.) Because of the 'youth' of the new media, very, very few regulations bind them, other than 'internet conventions' and the laws of public opinion, and supply and demand.

XS4ALL has always wanted to change that, has always opposed censorship and blocks of any kind (except self-imposed by users, instead of ISPs) and what this court ruling states is that because XS4ALL explicitly and implicitly imposes the conveyance obligation on themselves, it is as legal as if it were a forced obligation.

The reason there are no exlicit legal bounds to the rights and privileges of email, other 'new media' communication methods (think IRC, ICQ/IMs) and ISPs in general is simply that this is a 'new' media. This court ruling means that another step is made towards legitimizing and legalizing the rules and regulations that bind ISPs and the duties they have to attend to, as well as public (as in 'beyond the computing/internet community') awareness of the issues. This is important. It is not a single solution; it is not the big strike that ends spam immediately. It will be a long process but at least progress is being made. That is the hippy coolness of this news.