Australian Spammer Sues Back

Vilorman writes: "We've all heard the one about the spammers begin sued. Now, an Ausie spammer is suing back, for being blacklisted. Claiming damages and equipment replacement costs and so on. The whole article is over at Yahoo. So, I guess now, not only are we subjected to the spam, but we can't block it either?"

Comments

Spam stoppers are required

[HerrGlock]

I do not care if you have a business, there are too many ways for you to advertise already, you do not have to require the entire world to listen to your sales pitch.

The RBL and similar are volunteer organizations, there is no requirement for them to be used by anyone or any company. This is not even an issue because people are only securing their own networks from overloaded mail traffic. If this gentleman wants to solicit, it would be better to start a page for the company and then go looking for handshakes to put his banner on other pages, if he uses that, then people expect to get ads. Forcing his way into your personal mailbox is not a right in any country that I'm aware of.

DanH

Free speech

[jdavidb]

I'm usually an extreme free speech advocate. I've even been known to argue for the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. That said, free speech gives you the right to speak, not the right to force someone to hear you, and certainly not the right to force someone else to bear the cost of publication. The newspaper editor doesn't have to pay to publish your letter, Rob Malda and andover.net don't have to pay to let you post your comment, and I don't have to pay to download your spam. And free speech also means the other guy has a right to say, "Don't listen to this guy; he's a knucklehead." (or "don't accept IP traffic from this host, it's a spammer")

Re:Free speech

[jdavidb]

The absolute free speech principle I usually subscribe to would make these responses:

Free speech ends when what you are saying is untrue and hurtful to someone else's business.

Why? Does this constitute an abridgment under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution? (Yes, I know this is not a U.S. case.)

Let's imagine that say buy.com was put on an anti-spammer list... How much revenue would they lose?

If it's my list, I can do whatever I want with it. It's not a government sponsored list. The people providing me the resources to produce the list can choose to quit providing me those resources, if they want. The people using my list can choose to quit using the list, too, if they want.

Whose fault would it be?

The fault of the people using the list. But they don't have a contract with buy.com to provide connectivity, so I don't see that anyone should be allowed to make them.

I know you may disagree with these principles for various reasons, but this is how I would address them. (At least, most of the time. I waver and change my mind sometimes.)

Re:not so crazy?

[TheTrunkDr.]

Well I hope to god this is intentional flamebait. Being blacklisted causes no damage to any equipment, most of what these guys are after is rediculous.

$7,907 (AU$14,000) for replacing blocked or compromised IP numbers, $2,683 (AU$4,750) for labor costs of technicians to establish an alternative e-mail system, $2,824 (AU$5,000) to purchase a new server computer and $11,296 (AU$20,000) for loss of income it claims to have incurred over a 20-day waiting period

hmm last I knew it didn't cost $8k to get a new ip?!?! technicians?!? for what changing an ip on a server, nevermind about buying a new server, and if their isp takes 20 days to issue a new ip, they should be sueing their isp! I've worked at a company that got blackballed for relaying mail way back when spammers just started bouncing mail around, once we discovered the problem it was literally, turn off relaying - 5 minutes(max), get new ip from isp - one phone call (about 10 minutes), reassign ip and reboot server - 10 minutes. This is a ton of horsecrap, nevermind the fact that they're stealling people's bandwidth for sending unsolicited unwanted e-mail, I pay for it and get your crap off of it!!

Mailserver are private

[Erik Hensema]

Mailservers are private. Nobody can force me to receive anybody's mail. I can block whoever I want using whatever method I like. If I want to block connections using some blacklist, that's MY choice. The blacklist only offers me advice on what connection to accept or not. I can freely choose to follow that advice or not.

In short: sue whoever you like. You'll loose.