Slashdot Mirror
Spamhaus Responds To Spammers' Lawsuit
ShaiHulud-23 writes "A suit was recently filed by EMarketersAmerica.org, a fledgling secret organization of spammers, against the Spamhaus Project, (and other anti-spam sites) seeking to prevent the publication of the anonymous plaintiffs' IP addresses in the Spamhaus Block List (SBL). The suit requested a response from the named defendants, and Spamhaus director Steve Linford has provided one, dismantling the spammers' case point by point."
Should be "defendants"
Also, here's some amusing dirt on the lawyer who filed the suit (and registered the EMarketersAmerica domain.)
General Geekery
EMarketersAmerica.org, a fledgling secret organization of spammers
NOTE: secret organizations should NOT file public lawsuits.
"If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone."
~Epictetus
After all, they got Capone for income tax.
we're in effect giving an anti-spam company a DDOS with the /. effect. way to go, guys.
No really, that's great. I'm happy for all you guys. Biiiiiiig group hug? Everybody feel better that we're fighting the evil, evil spam now? Okay, good.
Seriously, I hate having my inbox clogged up as much as the next guy, but wake me up when something actually HAPPENS. I'm sick of hearing the two sides verbally piss on each other, I think we can all agree that's been done to death. How this rehashing of the same old crap is newsworthy to anyone is beyond me. Different face, same words.
After reading through that, I cannot believe how easily that lawsuit by the spam assholes of america - a subdivision of satan, inc, - will be thrown out of court.
How do you get an American court to have jurisdiction over a company that does not sell products to US consumers - since it does not sell anything - and does not have any divisions in the US?
A UK only company being sued in an American court? Why bother? Isn't it obvious?
... if I go to Florida and take this guy out. not only does he defend our favorite utility meat, but he's a lawyer. that has to be, like, an 11th commandment in some religion.
vodka, straight up, thank you!
From the main page at emarketersamerica.org :
...
Everyone hates spam... and that includes e-mail marketers.
Gee, I'd say, I wouldn't want to eat my own crap
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
(Subject line says it all.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I will read the Spamhaus response, when I can actually get to it.
In any case, one can only hope that this somehow bites the spammers on the butt more than if they hadn't bothered in the first place. And why does everyone act as if the US courts have global jurisdiction?
They're used to fighting spam...not a slashdot...so here's the cache. Google Cache
Talk about clueless and groundless.
GC
Google has the Spamhaus reply. Go go google. :)
Ok, you're an organization that sends UNSOLICITED emails, and you're attacking an organization who keeps a list of ips? No one is forced to use spamhaus's list -- they use the list because they don't want to receive your crap.
- tristan
I think it's inevitable...
Since it's impossible to verify the actual sender of any email, we need to be stricter about validating the server who sent it (most recently). AOL and MSN and the large corporations will eventually ban all email not coming from a small (< 100 domains) set of 'trusted hosts'. This will hurt small companies and small ISPs; the answer is that they will have to route their mail through a trusted host (or through someone else, who in turn...). These trusted hosts will become something like (and possibly run by) Verisign and other CAs. The small senders will have to pay for the authentication the trusted host provides (which they will pass on to their customers). This is already something like what ISPs do, when they refuse to forward SMTP mail except from their own block of IP addresses.
If a trusted host allows spam to be sent through it (on a large enough scale), then it is in danger of losing its 'trusted' status. Unless of course, it acknowledges its spammy status and pays (bribes?) the other trusted hosts to allow it to remain. The end result will be that spammers will have to pay (considerably) for the privilege of sending spam through a trusted host. Normal users will have to pay (a small amount) for the privilege of sending non-spam through a trusted host.
This isn't a radical idea, it's simply whitelists taken to their logical, structured conclusion.
spamhaus.org really should have learned from the LAST time a /.'ing smacked them off the internet. Geez!
:)
Hopefully someone mirrored it.
The Spamhaus Project, London, UK
Answer to Case Number 03-80295
Filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Florida by EMarketersAmerica.org (aka Mark E. Felstein) on behalf of anonymous senders of Unsolicited Bulk Email ("Spam").
The Spamhaus Project receives a great many threats of legal action from senders of Unsolicited Bulk Email (aka "spammers"). The cases attempted to-date have either never been accepted by a lawyer for filing or have been thrown out by the courts as being without merit.
Lawsuit 03-80295, filed by an anonymous group calling itself EMarketersAmerica.org (registered only 4 weeks ago to one Mark Felstein, the same lawyer who filed this case... i.e: the Plaintiff is the lawyer), is a SLAPP suit intended to harass those named. With regards to Spamhaus, the suit seeks an injunction to stop Spamhaus from publishing the IP addresses of the anonymous entity the Plaintiff represents on the Spamhaus Block List ("SBL"), an IP Preference List used freely and voluntarily by 140 Million Internet users to reject incoming spam emails from confirmed spam senders. The Plaintiff clearly believes he has a right to force SBL users to receive his spam. Spamhaus categorically rejects the argument that any Sender has a right to force the users of our SBL system to receive unsolicited bulk email messages.
The lawsuit requests an answer. The following is the answer of Spamhaus director Steve Linford on behalf of The Spamhaus Project:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
I . Plaintiff, EMARKETERSAMERICA.ORG, INC., (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "EMARKETERS"), is a Florida Non Profit Corporation with its principal place of business in PALM BEACH County, Florida. EMARKETERS' membership base consists of email marketers, internet services providers domiciled in and throughout Florida, and other related businesses, which operate their businesses throughout the United States and the World.
2. Defendant, SPEWS.ORG d/b/a THE HERMES GROUP (hereinafter referred to as "SPEWS"), is a United States of America based entity, which operates
a blacklist of other's Internet Protocol addresses. Additionally, SPEWS and its principals sell products which block the electronic transmission and Internet communications of American citizens and businesses. SPEWS
posts on the Internet and intentionally delivers information in its express efforts to interrupt and block the internet traffic of lawful
businesses and individuals. SPAMHAUS maintains a list of other's Internet Protocol addresses and servers. SPEWS operates and conducts its
activities through the Internet at www.SPEWS.org. Plaintiff is informed and believes that SPEWS has two offices located in California and one in Illinois.
3. Defendant, SPAMHAUS.ORG d/b/a THE SPAMHAUS PROJECT (hereinafter referred to as "SPAMHAUS"), is a United Kingdom based entity, which operates a blacklist of other's Internet Protocol addresses.
Specifically, Spamhaus operates the Spamhaus Block List ("SBL"), a DNS-published advisory list of IP addresses of confirmed junk email senders, known as the SBL Advisory, which allows SBL users to reject incoming spam emails.
Additionally, SPAMHAUS and its principals sell products which block the electronic transmission and communications of American citizens and
businesses.
Spamhaus does not sell any product whatsoever and never has sold any product. The SBL is published free of charge and does not block the transmission of email, it specifically blocks the receipt of junk email by computers belonging to SBL users.
SPAMHAUS posts on the Internet and intentionally delivers information in its express efforts to interrupt and block the Internet traffic of lawful businesses and individuals.
The "Internet traffic" (i.e: email) of 'lawful businesses and individuals' (i.e: senders of spam, the sending of which is illegal in 27 US States), is not blocked at the sending mail servers (the servers owned/operated by the spammers EMarketersAmerica allegedly represents), but is blocked by the recipients' own private mail servers, i.e: the blocking occurs at the point of ingress into the private mail servers of SBL users.
The SBL is used by SBL users (and SBL users alone) freely and voluntarily to reject unwanted spam email messages at the SBL users' own private mail servers. It does not prevent, interrupt or block the IPs listed from sending email, it merely prevents the known-to-be-unwanted messages they send from trespassing on the private computer equipment and networks of SBL users.
SPAMHAUS maintains a list of other's Internet Protocol addresses and servers. SPAMHAUS operates
and conducts its activities through the Internet at www.SPAMHAUS.org SPAMHAUS is believed to have an office in the United States, but the whereabouts are unknown.
Spamhaus does not have any office in the United States. The sole office is in the UK.
SPAMHAUS has at least six (6) name-servers, all
of which are pointed, directed, and which transmit through Defendant, CSL GMBH JOKER.COM.
Spamhaus has a total of 22 Name Servers in 10 countries. Had the Plaintiff bothered to query the DNS for the SBL zone (sbl.spamhaus.org) he would have seen that none of the SBL servers are pointed, directed or transmit though" the German Domain Registrar Joker.com
4. Defendant, CSL GMBH JOKER.COM (hereinafter referred to as "JOKER"), is an authorized registrant of domains on the world wide web within the internet. JOKER is a corporation organized under the laws of Germany. JOKER registered SPAMHAUS and SPEWS, but has failed to provide a proper and correct addresses to the public for same.
The address Joker.com provides for Spamhaus.org is the true and correct address of Spamhaus.
5. Defendant, STEVE LINFORD (hereinafter referred to as "S. LINFORD") is an individual and is believed to be a resident and domiciliary of the
United Kingdom, but has concealed his whereabouts.
Steve Linford has never concealed his whereabouts. Steve Linford is a British Subject and resides in the United Kingdom exactly where he has always said he does and his address and phone number is available to anyone who bothers to ask.
S. LINFORD is otherwise sui juris before this court. Plaintiff is informed and believes that S. LINFORD is an officer, director and principal of SPAMHAUS and SPEWS.
Steve Linford is the director of Spamhaus. Steve Linford has absolutely nothing to do with SPEWS, nor would it be feasible for him to run two separate anti-spam organizations. Aside from the madness of doing so, Steve Linford does not agree with the methods and policies of SPEWS. He does however support SPEWS' right to exist.
6. Defendant, JULIAN LINFORD (hereinafter referred to as "J. LINFORD") is an individual and is believed to be a resident and domiciliary of the
United Kingdom, but has concealed his whereabouts. J. LINFORD is otherwise sui juris before this court. Plaintiff is informed and believes that J. LINFORD is an officer, director and principal of
SPAMHAUS and SPEWS.
Julian Linford is Steve Linford's brother who has resided permanently in Italy since 1997 and has absolutely no knowledge of Spamhaus (except what he possibly reads in the press) nor the faintest idea what SPEWS is, nor whom any of the other persons named in this SLAPP suit are. He is categorically not an officer, director or principal of any anti-spam group or organization, Spamhaus or otherwise.
7. Defendant, ALAN MURPHY (hereinafter referred to as "MURPHY") is an individual and is believed to be a resident and domiciliary of the State
of Washington. MURPHY is sui juris before this court. Plaintiff is informed and believes that MURPY is an officer, director and principal
of SPAMHAUS and
I've always wondered about this. Excuse my possible ignorance, but I'm from Canada where the legal system is different than the States.
How can spammers sue anti-spam list maintainers? RBLs are purely voluntary. Companies/ISPs aren't forced by law to use RBLs. They implement RBLs out of their own volition (hopefully after doing a bit of research of the RBL in question).
I can see a point of a non-spammer is accidentaly added to the list and the RBL company refuses to remove the 'offending' company. But in this case, these are known spammers. They don't deny that they send out spam. It just doesn't make any sense. The spammers should be charged with wasting the court's time.
It's better to burn out than to fade away
Mark Felstein
555 South Federal Highway, Suite 450
Boca Raton, FL 33432
561-367-7990
mfels@aol.com
You know what to do!
Spamhaus should depose the plaintifs, and get the names of EVERY one of the greasy little bottom-feeders that's given them any money for this frivolous litigation.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Ok... so spamhaus.org publishes IP addresses of this spammer.... and is wrong for doing so?
I'm sorta vague on the law aspect here, but near as I see it... EMarketersAmerica.org sends out mail. This goes without saying they are using some form of a sendmail server. Given this IP address of their mail server is typicaly given out everytime they send mail, how do they feel they can successfuly sue someone for publishing this information.
I can see why they would be *annoyed* by the simple fact that it is now possible to block spam, but what can you do? If spamhaus.org was publishing the home addresses of people who send the spam, that would be wrong, but IP addresses of sendmail servers? I would think that any mail admin would have the right to organize lists of any *legit* mail server, let alone any mail server who clearly violates respective policies of respective ISPs.
Private people are granted some rights to privacy, but that tends to go out the window for a business. There are presently no issues I'm aware regarding a list of UPS stations, USPS stations, or FedEX stations. Mailadmins atleast traditionaly looked at the headers of mail to help diagnose problems, and ususally this info available via whois records.
So, at least in my minds eye, there shouldn't be a trully anonymous mailserver.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Make sure you make your feelings known about spam to the originator of this lawsuit, lawyer Mark Felstein.
:~ :~,_
FELSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Attorneys for EMarketersAmerica.org, Inc.
555 South Federal Highway, Suite 450
Boca Raton, Florida 33432
(561) 367-7990 Phone
(561) 367-7980 Facsimile
mark~ EMarketersAmerica.org
BY
Mark E. Felstein, Esq.
FBN: 192139
----- In Your Cubicle No One Can Hear You Scream...
Therefore, their (the spammers) lawsuit is defeated by the reality of the mail delivery system(s).
On a side note, those fucking spammers can eat a dick.
Spamhaus Responds To Spammer's Lawsuit
Did they send a mass mail to members of e-marketeers to inform them of the response ? Oh no, that would be like spamming them.
getSexySig();
Wouldn't it be better to give links to the spammers than the people trying to clear up the c**p that they send to my mailbox?
Then the famed 'effect' will be doing some good for a change...
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
The SpamCon Foundation has set up a legal fund to aid spamfighters that need legal assistance.
The defendants of this particular EMarketersAmerica suit also benefit from and endorse this fund.
You can sue for anything, really you can.
You should be allowed to sue for anything.
Who should judge what is worthy? A judge of course, nobody else should be allowed to make the decision if the case should proceed.
I don't see a better solution.
You gotta love how the spammers try to dress up their case: "The issuance of a temporary injunction will serve the public interest." Yeah, that would really be terrible not getting spam any more....I mean, I'd actually have to start reading and replying to some of the e-mail I get (or, at least, I _think_ I get).
Steve's response is very clear on the point that the SBL doesn't block the transmission of any messages, but he's fuzzy on whether it blocks the reception - in some places he says it does, while in other places he talks about the recipient blocking them. I thought that the SBL is implemented in a way that the user's email software does the blocking, after checking the site's status with the SBL. It's a potentially important difference - not so much for Steve or Spamhaus (because of the jurisdictional issues) but for the US plaintiffs. It shouldn't be - the recipient has every right to hire a blocking service to block spam for them, even if the one they've chosen to use charges no money - but it could make a difference to a jury or to a really clueless judge.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Wasnt there some idea not so long ago to use the spammers representative email address/street address as 'opt-in' info for practically every known form of junk mail on the planet? I wonder what some of those same crazy people will do this time?
better yet. just state that anyone who kills any of the major spammers will be given a full pardon for their act of public service.
You think cockroaches scatter fast when the lights are turned on? Think how fast the spammers will scatter when its open season.
This may be borderline flamebait, but since nothing else has worked to solve the spam problem.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
Deliver 300 bags of dog crap every day to their front doors, just to give em a taste of what it feels like.
This entire lawsuit is ridiculous, in fact, laughable at some points. Emarketers actually says that Spamhaus hijacked their IP addresses, and used them for their own gain. Huh? They also state repeatedly that Spamhaus blocks their IP addresses at the source, rendering their mail servers useless, in essence.
These guys are technically clueless. If you are going to sue someone for technical reasons, at least know what the hell you are talking about. I mean, is it just file the suit and hope for a clueless judge or something?
If this article confuses you, don't worry. It was posted yesterday in a much clearer fashion.
It doesn't really matter if the case is groundless or not, spamhaus still has to pay to defend against it. Even if its the time it takes to write up the reply. Also, while the Flordia court doesn't have juristiction in the UK, Steve Linford would be if he ever visited the US. This tactic has been used in environmental law for quite some time. Throw lawsuits against whistle blowers to distract them. The corporations always have more money than the non-profit groups.
mod parent way up please :) that link of his contains interesting information on what lengths spammers went thru to manage people who were VAGUELY related to someone who ran spamhaus WITHOUT actually being involved in it.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
Thats a rather illogical argument. If Spamhaus was blindly blocking every IP address in the 100.x.x.x range, then even though they have never heard of the people in that range, they could still be harming them. It's quite easy to harm people you have never heard of.
I agree with the comments below that basically say "the spam lists are free speech." It's up to the ISPs whether they use them or not. I really don't think this lawsuit will succeed against the nebulous organizations like Spews and whatnot.
However, to play devil's advocate, I think the spammers may have a cause of action against anyone who uses the SPEWS list or others, based on negligence. SPEWS unabashedly lists "innocents" who are guilty by association (i.e. they are webhosted by a webhoster that also has a spammer with a similar IP). For an sysadmin at an ISP or a business to the SPEWS list in total could easily be shown to be a negligent action resulting in a harm to legitimate business (not the spammers, but other users that have mail 'trapped' in the overbroad lists). If there were one or two lawsuits against sysadmins that resulted in these negligence claims, wham, spews is out of business because no one uses it.
This is just an idea, and one that needs to be thought through a bit more. There is a lot of new caselaw being made here, so anyone who says they have the legal answer really doesn't understand the question. It's going to be interesting, and I really think legislative action is going to occur before case law is written all hodgepodge around the country.
On a personal note, I'm not at 54 pieces of spam for every one piece of legitimate e-mail. One of the problems of having the same e-mail address since 1993. I fricking hate spam.
mod parent up please. sounds like a great idea. however would this information be considered confidential? or since it's a public lawsuit, can those names remain public? or does it all have to remain under emarketersassholes.org blah? mmm.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
Why is there no place for the victims? We suffer immensely from SPAM attacks. Writing back doesn't help, they only SPAM you more by sending you more SPAM.
This message is to all spammers: HELL'S COMING TO YOU! You hear? You've SPAM'd the wrong Hao Wu!
I suggest you read Slashdot
Don't read any politics into my post above (to which this is a reply). The "20th hijacker" is probably one of the few people who I am actually glad has been caught in the constitutionally questionable net Ashcroft has thrown.
Yeah, but read the claim: ...efforts are calculated to disrupt and destroy...
This suggests intentional, directed harm. And since Linford claims that he did not know EMarketersAmerica before the suit, it was impossible for him to have directed his actions intentionally against the plaintiffs.
Sure, he could have harmed them unintentionally before since he did not know them. But the spammers claim otherwise.
As easy as it is to rail against spammers and paint all commercial email with the same brush, shouldn't we see if the people listed are following the appropriate rules, or if they are breaking them before we try and bury them?
I don't think this is a question of "Are these the bad guys?" The answer is clearly yes. Emarketers appears to be a front for one of the Kings of Spam, Eddy Marin, also based in Florida, as hard as it is to believe.
You typically don't get added to Spamhaus if you aren't sending mass mailings by the tens/hundreds of thousands through open relays, using forged headers with no reverse DNS.
Sure, there are always exceptions, but don't shed any tears for these guys.
If this article confuses you, don't worry. It was posted yesterday in a much clearer fashion.
If I sign up for Yahoo and check the boxes saying I want to receive email about something, it is not spam, no matter how much I whine about it. If I can respond to the email and request to be taken off a list and actually be taken off of it, then it isn't spam. Not all commercial email is spam.
Let's be very clear on this. Your first statement is correct. Your second statement, however, seems to claim that it's not spam if the remove address works, which is 100% bullshit.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
you dont even need to depose them, interrogatories are cheaper and can be more effective under the circumstances... bury them in paperwork like they bury you in spam.
Sheesh... the EMarketersAmerica.org's message is pathetic and short sighted at best. I don't know how any form of unsolicited email marketing could be defined as 'legal' or within norm.
;/.
I've already lost count of how many times I had to change my email address thanks to the "tireless" effort of EMarketersAmerica.org types. For all I care, they are nothing but a bunch of selfish bastards tending to their own overpowering desire to get rich fast. It matters none to them that numerous hard working individuals on the receiving end have to waste every precious second of their lives on sifting through "oh-so-welcome" email spam promoting great deals/opportunities starting from Viagra and ranging all the way to outworldishly rich individuals of african descent in destress and of a dire need to give out sizeable portions of their fortune in exchange for piece of mind etc etc.
If there were any local laws prohibiting onsolicited spam, I'd be glad to pursue those sub-humans in courts. Unfortunately, there are no such laws and even if there were I doubt I could make any good use of them
Actually, what you talk about isn't so funny. Well maybe to some people.
**violence is bad, these are just thoughts, don't enact them**
I am thinking to myself, when is some average joe going to snap, and go on a rampage and kill a bunch of people at one of these spamming companies? Or, will a new Ted Kazynski (sp?) emerge and start mail bombing (err, real mail) the offices of these spammers? I think if it does happen, that there would be much sympathy for the defendent, eventhough it is a horrible thing to do.
But I do predict that it will happen. Just like no sports team has entirely died on an airplane accident, at some point it will happen. So to will there be a time when some average joe goes nuts and mail bombs the email spammers, the RI/MPAA, or even Microsoft.
Don't these entities realize that their actions might piss people off so much that such a catastrophy might happen? If I was head of these organizations, I'd be concerned.
**violence is bad, these are just thoughts, don't enact them**
I wonder if ValueWeb knows that they are hosting a run by multiple spammers with the intent of promoting spam. This is in violation of #9 in their AUP. I wonder if they are aware of this??
PING emarketersamerica.org (64.70.171.85)
whois 64.70.171.85@whois.arin.net
[whois.arin.net]
OrgName: CyberGate, Inc.
OrgID: CYBG
Address: 3250 W. Commercial Blvd. Suite 200
City: Ft. Lauderdale
StateProv: FL
PostalCode: 33309
Country: US
NetRange: 64.70.128.0 - 64.70.255.255
CIDR: 64.70.128.0/17
NetName: CYBERGATE-1
NetHandle: NET-64-70-128-0-1
Parent: NET-64-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS.VALUEWEB.NET
NameServer: NS2.VALUEWEB.NET
Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
RegDate: 2000-04-03
Updated: 2000-11-28
TechHandle: CN313-ARIN
TechName: Network Administrator, CyberGate Network
TechPhone: +1-954-334-8080
TechEmail: netadm@valueweb.net
There is no need for certificates. Just use DNS. Make a new DNS record that holds the address of an email server that is valid to send email for that domain. Refuse email sent from IPs that do not have authorization in DNS. Then, if a domain sends spam, you can block it (currently, there is no point, since the domain may not be owned by the spammer) as well as the sending IP. If this is done quickly enough, the spammer will not be able to send enough email to cover domain registration costs.
I signed up for a contest at the local Menards, and since my prefered mythod of contact is email I gave them my email address. Now I get weekly emails from them. Sure I'm a customer, but I didn't give them permission to SPAM me. (and their remove doesn't work) I've signed up before giving a telephone number and they never called that, but as soon as they get an email address they think it is okay to send me whatever they want.
Fortunatly Home Depot is in the same town (and soon coming to mine). Menards just lost a customer.
Be a good citizen and remove the popup ad from your mirror of the SpamHaus letter. If you must, slap a banner ad or a few sponsored links on the page, but yank the damn popup as it's diametrically opposed to the spirit of offering a mirror.
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Really looks like mark@emarketersamerica.org is the e-mail address at the end of the document that got mangled somewhere along the line. Anyone up for a spamfest? ;-)
-Pete
Might I propose a suit against Mr Felstein for bandwidth theft, loss of productivity & embarrassing stains in the in-box?
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
a 20% take on the "profit" of spamhaus as damages. What's that, no profit... but they're a business right, and competing with the spammers?
Seriously... I think these spammers believe they're the RIAA... and that simple intimidation tactics will work against anyone.
This will be a very interesting lawsuit. First of all, it's true that the state of FL has no jurisdiction over an individual in the UK. Second, the UK looks more dimly on spam than the US does (hard to believe, eh?). Third, this lawsuit looks like it will be VERY public. The defendant should be able to call this a slam dunk. No FL judge will probably be high enough to touch this either.
Freedom of speech does not equal freedom to harass.
Eddy Marin uses a company known as PG&C Leasing as a front for his spam operations. Here's the Google cache of what appears to be evidence of his company filing for Chapter 11. I don't think this is good news-I think he's restructuring.
This guy is way out there
The spamhaus guy certainly dissects emarketer's absurd lawsuit, but unfortunately that is a technique better suited for Usenet flamewars. (At risk of overstating the obvious...) It isn't gonna cut it in Federal Court. Spamhaus will ultimately have to file a coherent legal briefing - which I hope Slashdot links to when it becomes available.
Unfortunately, many court cases are more about who has deeper pockets than who is right...so if Spamhaus doesn't get this court case dismissed immediately, they could be in big trouble.
If they DO go to court, they run the risk of ending up with one of those old, crusty judges - the kind that has never actually used a computer, having his(or her) secretary print out his email every day instead. In which case the proceedings could drag on and on...and Spamahaus would probably be SCREWED.
According to the information the FL. Bar Ass. has on Mark Edward Felstein, he was only admitted to the bar in 3 yrs. ago. If you are currious, click the Find a Lawyer" and see for yourself.
Too bad he's going down such a low path so soon in his carear.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Since the only point of contact is the lawyer himself, you raise an interesting question: Does attorney/client privilege extend all the way to protecting the identity of the client?
I would assume no. To say otherwise would mean that anyone could file an anonymous suit, and be protected from punishment if the suit turns out to be frivolous. But I'm totally speculating.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
I remember just after 9/11 receiving an email from someone advertising some useless rubbish like a non-accredited degree or similar, which had been edited to say something along the lines of "Anti Spammers Support Bin Laden", before launching into several paragraphs of crap claiming that by adding their email address to your filters/using RBLs/etc you were supporting terrorism and "going against the American Way". How that applies to me living in the UK is beyond me, but that's another story entirely...
I hope whoever sent that one gets kicked off the net forever.
Spamhaus isn't a US entity, and Steve Linford isn't a US resident, and it's highly likely that the court has no jurisdiction over his actions, so it may be much cleaner for him to say "no thanks" and not be part of the suit. That means he may not get to play the Discovery game (or at least he'd need a real lawyer rather than me advising him.) But any of the US-based defendants certainly can go file discovery motions as part of their response, even if the result of them is to demonstrate that they're not part of the suit or that they didn't do the actions they're accused of or that those actions aren't a tort.
You can have *so* much fun with discovery in this - not only should they be able to get the names and real addresses and phone numbers of all the spammers that the plaintiff alleges are part of his organization, but also
and any other information you can think of that the spammers would probably rather NOT have exposed to public view. And be sure to get all of them in electronic form, and delivered to all the defendants, because even if Steve Linford and Spamhaus aren't under US or Florida jurisdiction, they're certainly parties to the case, and it'd be a real shame if there were no particular way to impose confidentiality rules on the non-US defendants for use of that data.
Yeah, it seems like a lot of data. But the plaintiff's suit doesn't just claim something fuzzy like libel (where he might have had a chance suing in the UK, though probably less likely here) or restraint of trade, it claims that the defendants engaged in activities that caused damages to the plaintiff by interfering with the plaintiff's legitimate activities, and that means that the actual activities that the plaintiff claims to have engaged in and the defendant's actions which allegedly i
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Go straight to the source! Eddy Marin 621 NW 53rd Street Suite 135 Boca Raton, Florida 33487 T: 561-999-9850 F: 561-995-8791 Toll Free: 877-317-1568 E-mail eddy@oneroute.net
This is left as an exercise for the reader.
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
So if you spam the world, but included encrypted crap in the spam, then your contacts can read the messages and there is never a dotted line from you to him for anyone to join!
So. How many of you have received spam with encrypted gobblegook of late? Most of the stuff in my mail box is. Can the ./ megamind decrypt this stuff?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe =UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22catalog+request+form% 22
...when a NerdTM can reason circles around a lawer...
All I want to know is, how the hell am I supposed to tell the difference? I get e-mails from RedHat, because I signed up for their newsletters. I get them from Yahoo, because I signed up for their services.
/dev/null sort them out. If an e-mail "marketer" is using some obscure loophole in some bogus website EULA, then they're not white hats. They're just not the deepest shade of black around.
But how are you, the consumer, supposed to tell if one of your "white hats" is actually one of Yahoo's "marketing partners?" Seriously, every spam I get comes with a disclaimer that says I "opted in." I remember one especially infuriating one that listed about a dozen different ways to opt in, and at least half of them were so vague as to make it impossible to say, "no I didn't."
My philosophy is, if I'm not absolutely sure I signed up for something, then kill them all. Let
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
and GOD DAMMIT, you just have to slashdot it.
they're all congregating in one place now... easier to eradicate. =P
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
Start by disbarring the lawyer for abuse of his position as an officer of the court. Follow with criminal case for perjury. Top off with civil suits for libel and harassment.
It is pretty clear that some of the information in the lawsuit is made up. Completely, from whole cloth. For example, the claim that Spamhous's DNS registration information is incorrect seems to be an utter falsehood. The claim that the defendants converted IP addresses and servers to their own use is ridiculous.
Some Florida lawyer could make a lot of money by going after this guy with a class action suit where all of us who receive spam claim damages from his harassing our legitimate efforts to stop spam. Not to mention what Spamhaus should be able to collect for defending itself against this frivolous lawsuit.
I am also very curious what ramifications can be made from the fact that the group behind this apparently chose to incorporate entirely to issue this lawsuit. If so, it would seem to me that their corporate registration is fraudulent. If so, they should be prosecuted for that. Further, they should also lose the normal liability protection of the corporation and be eligible to be listed as co-defendants in the civil suits mentioned above. IMO. IANAL.
The defendants of this particular EMarketersAmerica suit also benefit from and endorse this fund.
...If we donate, do we get dividends from
the countersuit? ;-)
Just out of curiousity, considering the blatantly frivolous nature of this particular suit...
Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing against the defendants here nor am I equating their actions to the ones I list above. I am just suggesting that a lot of their defense hinges on a pretty weak argument.
True, it's hard to enforce laws outside of your borders, but where economic and military power come into play, there are ways to get your point across....
Your Servant, B. Baggins
How do I tell the difference between spam and commericial email? To do so, I have to give them information showing that my email is active. I refuse to trust someone who has not given me any reason to trust them. I look forward to the development of a real system: for example, an actual trusted source which maintains an opt-in list for email. Then I might be willing to acknowledge the potential existence of non-spam commercial email.
In regards to your last point, who are the members behind the lawsuit? I think the fact that they are anonymous says it all about whether or not they are legitimate business people.
Also, I think that if RTFC (read the complaint) that it is pretty obvious that it is issued by someone who really does not know enough to be involved in a legitimate emailing business. Further, parts of it are clearly fraudulent and libelous. If these people had any real legal leg on which to stand, they would not have to make stuff up to file the lawsuit.
I hope that the lawyer who filed the lawsuit is disbarred for abuse of his position as an officer of the court. I hope that he and his buddies are sued for libel, harassment, and other damages to the point that when they get out of jail from their perjury charges that they will be penniless.
The sheer chutzpah of this lawsuit deserves an unequivocal response.
One thing to remember: As much as we all detest SPAM, it is entirely possible for the block list publishers to go overboard. For example, blocking all "open relays" as if they were the same as spam originators. I know of a site that allows outside systems to transfer mail through them. Even though the site carefully filters email for legitimate from or to addresses, it is included on some block lists as an "open relay" because anyone can connect to them. There are legitimate business reasons for what they are doing (they do NOT send commercial solicitations of any kind, solicited or otherwise), so they put up with the black-listing.
Point is - Look before you shoot. Not everything in the world can be as easily classified and pigeonholed as we'd like to think.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Brilliant solution that could REALLY cut down on illegal spam: http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rmx_records/
Steve Linford is the director of Spamhaus. Steve Linford has absolutely nothing to do with SPEWS, nor would it be feasible for him to run two separate anti-spam organizations. Aside from the madness of doing so, Steve Linford does not agree with the methods and policies of SPEWS. He does however support SPEWS' right to exist.
....
Does that sound mysteriously like Monty Python to anyone else?
Judith: I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Roman's, but that he can have the _right_ to have babies.
Francis: Good idea Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your _right_ to have babies, brother....err....Sister, sorry.
Reg: It's symbolic of his fight against reality.
You are reading comments into the rebuttal that aren't there. If you can't see the difference between "directed his actions intentionally against the plaintiffs" (your words) and "could not be harming the Plaintiff in any way" (the rebuttal's words), then clearly you shouldn't be debating law...
All I'm saying is that the "could not be harming the Plaintiff in any way" phrase that is repeated over and over again in the document is just plain wrong, and if that is the text the are using in their official legal response to the lawsuit, it isn't going to go in their favor. Because, to repeat myself, you can harm people you don't know. Their rebuttal needs to take this into account if they want a judge to side with them.
You mention that Linford "has an excellent countersuit." I would agree, but I am unsure if you are claiming that he has already filed one or that he could file one.
I think that not only the defendants of the case should countersue but that those who use the SBL and those who are protected by the SBL should join the suit (as a class action) against the negative effects that could be caused by hindering Spamhaus's work. I also think that anyone who owns part of this corporation should be named as a defendant in the suit. Clearly the corporation is an attempt to hide the actual principals and protect the from liability. I'm not sure of the legal basis, but I think that that protection should be voided by their active participation.
Hopefully the discovery phase will dig up some of their actual illegal behavior (forging headers, hacking boxes to send email from them), so that the courts can prosecute them. It would be great if it could be proved that some of the product distributors who benefit from this advertising could be shown to have actively participated as well. Cut off the funding for spam.
Seriously, if some lawyer wanted to take this task on, I (and many others, I'm sure) would be happy to help with the preparation of requests for useful data and interpretation of the data once it is received. Just post a response here and I will be happy to post one of my spamcatcher accounts. Just give me an idea of what the email will look like so that I don't accidentally delete it with my spam...
1. Now that his address has been posted to Slashdot, how much snail mail do you think Mr. Feldstein is going to get next week?
2. Does anyone else think it's a coincidence that the site that comes up first when you google for "free catalog" (cabelas.com) is running rather slowly right now?:)
This Sept, I'll have to swing by the morons house. I'll ring his doorbell at 3am, and when he refuses to let me come in and talk to him, I'll hit him with a lawsuit.
I am anything but pro-spam, but I'm happy to see the blackhole lists get kicked around a little bit. Some of my accounts get hit more than the average person, because they are well placed on many web pages, or have been in use for years and are now forwarded to my account when people leave the company. I average about 200 spam messages per day coming into my account.
/.'d right now, or I'd complain about them, but lets check who we can.
$RANT_MODE="ON";
I also handle many networks, with many many machines. Some of our networks have other people's equipment on it, but I'm 100% positive that they don't spam from their machines. Since they frequently ask me to help with their configurations, or help with problems, I'm intimately aware of what they do.
If there are spam complaints, they filter through to me very quickly. Level3's abuse account gets most of them. They filter out most of the bogus complaints, and are quick to get with us about legitimate complaints. We did have one machine hosted on one network that was spamming, which we ejected from the network shortly afterwards.
On a monthly basis, someone will come to me saying that they've been blacklisted by one of the many lists for ambiguous reasons. Any incident that is legitimate is cleared up between us and our bandwidth provider, under the threat of having the IP or IP block blocked from all Internet access. Level3 Communications is very anti-spam. They'll cut you off for being a spammer. If we don't explain or handle an incident, we could very easily loose our lines. I have no problem with this.
The last case with Level3 was a single spam complaint, sent through SpamCop. The message wasn't a spam at all. Someone had made a purchase online with an invalid credit card number. The Email simply stated that they had attempted a purchase (with IP and invoice number), and said if they still intended to make the purchase, they should contact the sales department at the store. I know the owner of the store personally, so I called him. He freaked out when I told him there was a spam complaint. This is a business man who is the most honest person I know. (If in Ft. Lauderdale, tell Glenn I say "hi"). I read the Email to him, and he confirmed that it was a legitimate message, and the card had been bad.. He immediately cancelled the order, and blacklisted the customer. The next day I got a forwarded Email which was an apology from the customer. She sends every Email off to SpamCop, and lets them sort them out. Nice, huh?
Now on to the abuses of the spews system. SpamHaus is
65.59.224.0/25 is one of our networks. A small backwater of our network. A few older machines live there, and not much happens. SPEWS has 65.59.224.0/24 blacklisted, as well as 66.166.136.128/24 which is no relationship to us (the wrong network size is theirs, not ours). Because I have machines on the first half of 65.59.224.0/25, I'm blacklisted. 65.59.224.128/25 could be blacklisted, but I happen to know that they have quite a few hosting customers, most of who know nothing about the other customers.. Legitimately blacklisted??
ORDB has my ex-girlfriend's mail server listed. She develops and hosts sites. No spamming at all.
65.59.224.11 is listed as herbalo.com. Funny thing is, it doesn't exist on our network.. I'll personally escort anyone from spews into the colo to prove it to them.. Oh wait, I forgot, these are anonymous people who don't exist in the real world and don't feel themselves accountable for blacklisting innocent networks.
AOL has blocked one of my own servers, as well as those of two different friends (on their own networks) for "potential spam".. One of them had a *WEB* proxy server, and aparently because it existed (on port 8000), he was blacklisted from sending
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
So part of the claim in the emarketersamerica suit is that the defendents are clearly disguising their identities through providing false information to their domain registrar (which the spamhaus people deny)...
:
Yet do a little whois on emarketersamerica.org
Registrant ID:71-C
Registrant Name:SEE SPONSORING REGISTRAR
Registrant Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
Registrant Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
Registrant City:N/A
Registrant Postal Code:N/A
Registrant Country:CA
Registrant Email:not@available.org
Admin ID:71-C
Admin Name:SEE SPONSORING REGISTRAR
Admin Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
Admin Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
Admin City:N/A
Admin Postal Code:N/A
Admin Country:CA
Admin Email:not@available.org
Billing ID:71-C
Billing Name:SEE SPONSORING REGISTRAR
Billing Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
Billing Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
Billing City:N/A
Billing Postal Code:N/A
Billing Country:CA
Billing Email:not@available.org
Tech ID:71-C
Tech Name:SEE SPONSORING REGISTRAR
Tech Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
Tech Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
Tech City:N/A
Tech Postal Code:N/A
Tech Country:CA
Tech Email:not@available.org
-jag
http://starboard.flowtheory.net/
I've got Jury duty coming up. Too bad it is in a completely different state.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Would it be resonable for an ISP to restrict the number of recipients that can be associated with an given e-mail? For example if an e-mail has more than 50 recipients the server would bounce the e-mail asking the sender to reduce the number of recipients on the e-mail or for the sender to include a time variable ID (would be valid for 24 hours) in an extended field. This would require some mailing-list programs to be rewritten, but it would ensure that the address to which the e-mail was bounced actually exists. Spammers would not be able to get the bounced message because of forged from address, but mailing lists which use real address could be automated to deal with this.
For this we will need to define two extended headers, one for providing the ID and expiry time to the 'bouncee' and another for the original sender to resend the e-mail. The content of the bounced message would be human readable to allow the same thing to be done by hand.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Pleadings aren't made under oath, so nothing contained in them can be perjury. If you deliberately state facts you know to be false, however, you could run into civil liability for abuse of process.
MHO. YMMV. Any resemblance between this post and real persons, or reality in general, was accidental.
Looks like we have some fresh talent in the /. editorial pool:
From the Spamhous Project page, we have:
EMARKETERSAMERICA.ORG, INC., A Florida Non Profic Corporation.
Non Profic? What's so bad about Profics?
And from the emarketersamerica page, we have:
U.S. Economy Will Suffer if Anti-Spammers Get Their Way and Crippled the Billion Dollar e-Mail Marketing Business
Certainly you mean The U.S. Economy, and perhaps even the present-tense Cripple instead of the past-tense Crippled.
Sigh
--
Although I appreciate your argument, the guy doesn't have much choice. A quick look at the curvedspaces.com website shows that it's a free hosting company, that has an automatic popup. Admittedly, I didn't get one at all (I use Phoenix/Firebird/whatever), but I'd guess that that's where it's from.
If that's the case, then at the end of the day, a) he doesn't have a choice and b) he's still done better than either you or I...
...he obviously needs a sharp lesson in being extra careful in who he chooses to take on as clients. A nice Slash-junkmail-bomb might drive that point home.
You're using her as bait, Master!
gee, I didn't see it. Thanks Safari!
A computer without a Microsoft operating system is like a dog without bricks tied to its head
That's a nice response. It entirely makes sense.
And the judge's eyes will glaze over at the first attempt at distinguishing the blocking of ingress email vs. the blocking of email transmission.
Here is what to write in the response, in the very first paragraph:
Defendant keeps a list of known spammers. People who don't want spam look up this list. Or rather, they instruct their computers to lookup the list before downloading email.
Any attempt at being technically rational is sure to meet utter failure in 99.5% of courts:
"Hippy headdress? What hippy headdress?"
"No, your Honor. IP address."
"Whatever. It's a bunch of anarchist hippies sabotaging honest businesses."
I wish I was joking, but freedom and privacy don't exactly seem to be on a roll these days in courts...
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
Demand for Jury Trial
Plaintiff, EMARKETERSAMERICA.ORG, INC. hereby makes a demand for a jury trial of all counts so triable.
Sweet, these morons *want* a jury trial.
Jury: "Your honor, we find the defendant SpamHaus et al. innocent on all charges, and furthermore recommend the public castration and/or execution of the plantiff & all it's members.
Judge: "Sounds good to me."
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
The lawsuite filed by these spammers is so much bullshit that you don't even need lawyers to defend it off. Any judge who this is brought to will know it's bullshit, and all the defendants have to do is say, "nope, completely voluntary service", "nope, spammers have no business relationship with their victims", "nope, never sold a product". No judge in the US is going to award a judgement in favor of spammers; if anything, they'r exposing themselves for prosecution under anti-spam laws.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I'm afraid to admit I live in Florida... BUT maybe I've been here longer then this idiot has (22 years this Saturday!)
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
I can't figure out if the guy is clueless or simply one of the biggest liars I have ever heard of. Clearly, some of the allegations he makes are false and wrong. So, I guess that the frivolous lawsuit would take care of this, if Linford bothered to file it. Also, I wonder if the discovery process could actually provide information for a suit in the European Union, which is not so keen to corporate prevarication (http://www.spamlaws.com/eu.html for a list of laws in Europe). Also, an association whose purpose is to help crime (as spam is in some states) could also be criminally charged by a DA, anywhere in the world, as long as it negatively impacts LEGITIMATE business with deliberate actions.
By the way, we all read with a lot of interest Spamhaus material and therefore they are of public concern!!
Also, I wonder if I could sue some of the members for invasion, modification and appropriation of Private Property: in fact, they are changing the content of my hard drive with no authorization whatsoever (yes, frivolous, but less than their lawsuit).
Last, some claims of the Truly Ours S. Linford, could have been little bit more effective in certain statements, e.g.
- the fact that he had never heard of the plaintiff, does not necessarily imply that he can not harm it;
- the retort to 51& 52 is wrong as they are about the members of emarketerswhatever, not the association itself
I also hope that the lawyer did not use internic to get the domain name record info because he would have declared that his query would not
(a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, or facsimile of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than
the data recipient's own existing customers.......
Everyone has the right to free speech. And I have the right to plug my ears.
They can send spam all they want but I'm damn sure going to block them with the software I "Choose" to install. In essence I'm plugging my ears to the crap the spammers are sending me.
I dont think any judge is going to force people to listen. Especially when a bill is being pushed through congress to form a national no spam list.
39. Defendants, S. LINFORD[et al] converted said Internet Protocol addresses and servers to their own use and for their own financial gain.
The attorney who wrote that hasn't a clue what it means.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
One thing that spammers frequently misquote is our own constitution. The first admendment protects freedom of speech for *INDIVIDUALS*, NOT CORPORATIONS or other business entities. Corporations are not guaranteed any rights under the first admendment.
The other key point in the document is that the Spamhaus Black List (SBL) blocks spam at the destination, not the source.
"Black Lists" of this type don't block any mail. Not any more than the phonebook calls your number.
The "Black List" is only a tool, and the end user can do with it as he chooses.
The user of a Blacklist can "Whitelist" any network he wants. The Blacklist doesn't force the rejection of any email. It is 100% up to the user of the Blacklist what to do when a IP/Network is found in the Blacklist.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Disclaimer: I am a n00b second-year law student. I'm also summarizing on a specific issue.
As I understand it, jurisdiction is possible in federal court under 28 USC section 1332 (a)(2). This is one of the subsets of diversity jurisdiction called alienage jurisdiction. 28 USC section 1332 (a)(2) allows a lawsuit to be filed in federal court if it involves both a $75,000+ and a suit by a US state citizen against a foreign national. That's why you see all the $75,000 figures in the suit. If the spammer's lawyer can't prove they meet the $75,000+ amount in controversy, there is no diversity jurisdiction and the case gets dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I'm not sure whether the judgment would be enforceable against Spamhaus, should they somehow manage to lose the case. I vaguely remember my civil procedure teacher saying that UK courts were generally willing to enforce US judgments, so long as they appeared legit. I'm not sure about that, though.
"But the Anti-Spammers have a mob mentality and want to get rid of both the innocent and guilty," Response... :: Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do ::
They seem to be trying to have the trial by jury probably hoping that the jury will not understand the technical details and award in favour of the damn spammers.
Take a look at the "registration" data from Emarketers whois.
8 FD E18C%40etherboy.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
r m% 241%40baldur.whoi.edu&oe=UTF-8&output=gpla in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3EA8586F.3
mefels@aol.com
Hosted an Instakiss AOL password phish site within his own acct. (now taken down by AOL or him after it was discovered).
Another site that was associated with the instakiss crime:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b8sf1k%24n
So Felstein is a crook as well as a delusional lawyer.
Uh-duh. German dolt. Spamhaus = Spamhouse
It would be most important to obtain the complete list of email addresses they send to.
That way, the people who own the email addresses on the list can be asked if they had opted in (EMarkerters did state that they ran an opt-in scheme only...)
Steve.
What would be much more interesting is a lawsuit from the ISPs that gets hit by the punitive overlisting (the 'escalated listing') that SPEWS and SpamHaus practices.
These affect in most cases upwards of 99% completely innocent customers of the victimized ISPs, who in some cases don't even host the spam emailers or the spamvertised sites; they are simply providing 'other services' (payment services, bandwidth for steaming etc.) for companies that may be using spam elsewhere in other parts of their business, and yet they get branded 'Spamhaus!' and gets blacklisted.
As there is absolute no additional spam-stopping effect of this overlisting, its only purpose seem to be to blackmail the ISPs to stop a non-spam-related business relationship with companies that SPEWS/SpamHaus disapproves of in order to exact revenge or similar stupid action.
The 99% innocent victims are being pressured to switch ISP, which may result in multi-million dollar expenses (like when they need to move all their servers elsewhere) that nobody but themselves can possibly be expected to cover, and sometimes the ISP even demands damages for prematurely terminated contracts.
As these blacklists are part of the de-facto standard blacklist published by osirusoft, a listing by SPEWS/SpamHaus practically guarantees severe email connectivity problems, which makes it effectively a sender block, not just a receiving block. This means that this type of listing actually prevents millions of innocent users from sending mail, despite the fact that they've never sent anything remotely like spam, and probably hates spam as much as everybody else.
Last time I checked blackmail was very much illegal and it would be good to see how the legal system judges this practice, especially considering that most people have no idea that their ISP may be preventing them from receiving email from ordinary people who are unfortunate enough to have an ISP that's being victimized by a SPEWS/SpamHaus overlisting, despite clearly not being a source of spam.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Spamhaus is based in the UK. US law does not apply there, and US courts do not have authority there. Now if someone has comitted a serious enough crime in the US, they can be extradited form the UK to stand trial here. However this is a civil, not a criminal matter. There really isn't anything US courts can do about it.
Welcome to the international world.
please mod parent up a few notches, this "n00b" has some pretty darn interesting info on that $75k figure.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
I'm surprised the emarketersamerica website hasn't been slashdotted yet. ^_^
From the page:
Since the suit was filed April 14th, Mark E. Felstein has received threatening phone calls, corruption of his e-mail addresses and when his organization simply registered and parked its domain with a well-known register, it was wrongly blacklisted and immediately terminated by Anti-spammers.
(I really should be above this, but the fax number is listed on that page too. Have fun with the loop-of-black-pages trick!)
... somewhat like this:
You put all of your money into a big pile. Your opponent puts all of his/her money into another big pile. Then the lawyers come along and start tearing up the money piles. Whichever lawyer finishes first loses.
-- Yoz
Chickenboner.com doesn't have anything at the link posted in the parent post... Anybody get a mirror of it before it got pulled?
Who did what now?
And the UK along with every one else will become enemies of the US - threats of force only work so far...
Still the point though that a Florida court has absolutely no jurisdiction and I hope Spamhaus tell them to shove their lawsuit where the sun don't shine and don't waste any more time on it.
You're absolutely right, there is a gap there. Maybe what we need is legislation that forces disclosure of where the address came from and who the sender really is. This could all be faked, of course, but at least it would give you a route to check.
i.e.:
Source: yahoo.com
But I don't use a yahoo anything
SPAM!!!!!!
$.02
Someone should come up with a list of judges that are pro-spam and are in positions where they have get votes to stay in office. I would be willing to help pay to get them kicked out of office.
I'm glad you took the time to misinform people about American law. Had you read the link, you would've noticed 28 USC 1332 was referenced (also known as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 1332). Here's a link to the code itself if you want it.
Basically, what the law says is that if one party is a resident of the state and the other is a resident of a foreign nation AND the damages claimed will be at least $75,000 then the Federal District Court for that state (or part of the state for larger states) has jurisdiction over the case.
Here they said they are residents of Boca Raton, FL, which is in the Southern District of Florida, SPAMHAUS et al are NOT in florida in any way, and they were going to claim damages of at least $75,000. They likely listed everyone and their cousins to make it perfectly clear that complete diversity of citizenship exists. If you don't have complete diversity of citizenship then the Federal Court will throw the case out because it's a State Court matter. It's a little more complex than that and IANAL. I am a law student but this IS NOT legal advice.
And for anyone who doesn't bother checking the above link to the USC, if the damages later end up being less than $75,000 then the plaintiff may not get costs and indeed might have to pay the costs so making a blind allegation that you meet the $75,000 mark can turn out to be expensive if a jury later awards you $1 and the judge levies the costs on you.
So next time you're going to make legal conjectures do at least attempt to do a little research.
They probably believe that the Lumber Cartel (tinlc) is out to get them, too...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
As a side note, Spamhaus would never state that Internet Protocol ("IP") addresses are "not the property of the Plaintiff" since all IP addresses are clearly the property of whomever they are assigned to. Likewise it would be inconceivable of Spamhaus to state that the "servers of members of the Plaintiff's are not their property" since any servers the Plaintiff owns are clearly the Plaintiff's property.
ICANN 'owns' all IP addresss, when an IP is assigned to you, it is a annual lease not ownership.
since neither the Plaintiff nor its members have any right whatsoever to force unwanted junk email onto the private computer of an SBL user.
0 01 8_en_1.htm
Actually any attempt by the plaintif to 'force' its unwanted junk email on to a private computer within the UK is clear break of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which makes it a criminal offense to "secure access to any computer [that is unauthorised]". The plaintif is therefore seeking to obtain Florida Court approval to breach UK Criminal Law.
--- quote ---
'The Computer Misuse Act 1990' Section 1;
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if--
(a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
(b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
(c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
(2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at--
(a) any particular program or data;
(b) a program or data of any particular kind; or
(c) a program or data held in any particular computer.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/Ukpga_1990
Legitimate emailers do not send bulk mail unless they have a confirmed subscription from each recipient. Spammers send bulk mail without confirmed subscriptions. It's that simple.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
www.emarketersamerica.org have also thoughfully provided a telephone number for contact by media.
Media Contact: (561) 750-9800 ext. 16
A reverse lookup at Google states:
Yvonne K Kemeny, (561) 997-9008, 4601 NW Boca Raton Blvd, Boca Raton, FL 33431
Either you've mistyped the number or you're playing some sort of game. Moderators -- stuff like this should be checked out first.
How much does it cost to file suit in Florida? $100? Plus another couple of thousand dollars for Mark Feldstein's fees ...
/.?
... and we fell for it. Duh.
That's pretty cheap advertising for Eddy Marin and EMarketersAmerica.org. What more widespread and effective marketing and advertising than getting on
In under 4 weeks, Eddy's created a brand that's recognized by hundreds of thousands of people. I think that's impressive.
-- Dossy
Dossy's Blog
Jaguar just send me an invite to go and drive their new XJ8 at Lime Rock Park. I don't think that is an exactly unwellcome intrusion. Nor is it exactly unreasonable to think that someone who bought an XK8 three years ago might be interested in an invitation to drive the new model.
The invite came by mail but it would have been OK by email.
I don't think it is unreasonable for a company I do business with to send me occasional mail. At some time perhaps we can get round to deciding exactly what the boundaries are. However first lets get rid of the vast bulk of outright criminal spam sent with fraudulent intent.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
taken from the mirror: http://www.yukon.curvedspaces.com/s.htm warning mirror has pop-ups! unpreventable, the host forces them.
11. Defendant, RICHARD C. TIETJENS a/k/a MORLEY DOTES, (hereinafter referred to a "TlETJENS") is an individual and is believed to be a resident and domiciliary of the State of Oregon. TIETJENS is sui juris before this Court. Plaintiff is informed and believes that BROWER is an officer, director and principal of SPAMHAUS and SPEWS.
Richard Tietjens is not an officer, director or principal of Spamhaus. Spamhaus categorically does not believe Richard Tietjens is or ever has been an officer, director or principal of SPEWS.
12. Defendant, ADAM BROWER, (hereinafter referred to a "BROWER") is an individual and is believed to be a resident and domiciliary of the State of Illinois. BROWER is sui juris before this Court. Plaintiff is informed and believes that BROWER is an officer, director and principal of SPAMHAUS and SPEWS.
Noone writes jokes in base 13!
Haven't you gotten spam from Verisign? I have.
What makes you think that will get rid of spam. The most you can hope for with this approach is that only those willing to pay a fee will be able to send spam.
I'd propose a different system. Everybody sign email with a public key. If it doesn't have a trusted key, and it's not on your whitemail list, then it's spam. Everyone gets to choose which keys they want to trust. And if they start getting signed spam, they can revoke either the whitelist entry, or the key signer (depending on which it is). I wouldn't trust Verisign, but I'd trust Red Hat and IBM.
If you want to send e-mail to someone, and they don't know you, then you either need to get them to enter your e-mail address on their whitelist, or you need to get your e-mail signed by someone they trust. You can either get them to trust your, or get someone that they do trust to sign it. The easy way is to get them to trust you (click this link to enable us to send you e-mail)... but if you start sending junk, then they'll revoke the trust, and you'll need to start over.
The drawback here, of course, is that when the user switches computers, their ring of trusted signers will be lost. So you need to create a way to enable the sending of this ring from machine to machine. (Well, e-mail should work... but you need to build this capability into the mail interface.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
And..and...We will roast their stomachs in hell, over a burning pile of spam. But first we will hit them with old shoes. Allah be praised!
If I remember right, the latest census reported that 45% of all Americans with a 6th grade education were employed in spam or spam-related industries (i.e. penis enlargement, porn production, and transporting millions of dollars out of South Africa). Imagine the cost to society if all of these people were deprived of their means to get by!
In Moz 1.3 they broke some of the popup blocking. I'm not real impressed with their new site-by-site approach, myself...
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
It'd be a great way for the /. community to "actively confront" the problem at its source.
Everyone knows that damage is done to the soul by bad motion pictures. -Pope Pius XI
In Russia...
Since this is the US, the answer is no. A defendant has a constitutional right to face his/her accuser in court.
when will other idiots learn that sometimes when they post, "2 other mirrors" were NOT listed.
Asshole.
The usual way to handle large numbers of plaintiffs in a lawsuit is to do a class action thing; this would be easy if you had all the names, but of course the obvious way to contact them would be .... spamming them :-)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Some people are truely evil, lack all morals, and have no conscience. Spammers are one of the lowest forms of life there is. Why we tolerate such bullshit is beyond me. Not one of these losers deserves life or liberty. I have more respect and compassion for a serial killer than a spammer.
"At first, we thought it was just another snake cult."