Slashdot Mirror


Judge Rules In Favor Of Spamhaus

Waylon writes "U.S. District Judge Charles Kocoras has ruled in favor of The Spamhaus Project. e360 Insight responded on its homepage, saying the judge's ruling was 'a devastating loss of personal freedom for all U.S. citizens'. As opposed to shutting down a voluntary service which tries to mitigate the millions of unsolicited emails that e360 Insight pumps out every single day." From the article: "In his order, Judge Kocoras wrote that the relief e360insight sought is 'too broad to be warranted in this case' and that suspending the domain name would 'cut off all lawful online activities of Spamhaus, not just those that are in contravention' of the default judgment. He also called e360insight's motion one that 'does not correspond to the gravity of the offending conduct.'"

171 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. Whew by Umbral+Blot · · Score: 1, Funny

    That's a relief, I really don't think I was ready to handle all that spam.

    1. Re:Whew by swd2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure you could have handled it, To be honest Spamhaus is mostly using other peoples dnsrbl's anyway. I get alot more out of tqmcube.com or cbl.abuseat.org than the Spamhaus's.
      Plus you should never be rejecting from these lists anyway, just scoring and allowing your users to decide what should be rejected.

    2. Re:Whew by fredklein · · Score: 1

      I have a simple, foolproof idea to help eliminate spam.

      Email certification.

      If you want to be able to send Certified Email (CE), you apply for Certification from the company that gives you internet connectivity. They check you out, and 'Certify' you as being a legitimate emailer (ie: not a spammer). Then, you generate a private/public key pair and give them the public one. In the headers of all your email, is their certification, and an encrypted header line that's createdusing your private key.

      When email arrives at the recipients server (or this could be done at the client level, as well), the server sees the certification, and connects to the certifying server to get your public key. It attempts to decrypt the header line. If it does it marks the email as 'certified', if it cannot, it marks the email as 'uncertified', and the email client can be programmed to filter messages based on that.

      Due to the public/private key cryptography, there can be no certified email spoofing. (Assuming the private keys are secure, the keys are of decent length, etc.) All emails are traceable back to the originating server. CORRECTION- all CERTIFIED emails are traceable. Anonymous email is still possible. People can still set up email servers for mailing lists without "having" to get them certified. And people can still receive non-certified mail.

      If an email server sends out spam, the complaints go to it's certifier. They can drop the certification, deleting the public key from their server. When this happens, ALL the email from the spamming server is now 'uncertified', and gets handled accordingly by email clients. If nothing is done, complaints go to THEIR upstream, etc. Individuals and groups can keep their own blacklists, if they wish, and anyone can choose to filter emails according to those lists.

      Now, I've looked over that 'form email' that people like to post to shoot down anti-spam ideas. And nothing applies to this idea. (If something seems to apply, it's because I either left out details, or explained something wrong.) This idea does NOT need to be universally adopted, nor does it need to be adopted by everyone all at once. It's primarily a way of reliably tracing (certified) emails back to their originating server. The anti-spam part comes later: if you receive certified spam, complain and get the server un-certified. If you receive un-certified spam... well, just have your email client dump all uncertified emails in the trash. (Not nessisarilly, you could just use it's un-certifedness as a factor in filtering your email.)

      This idea does not require anything be changed with SMTP. It simply requires a second connection be made to the certifying server. Now, before you bitch about the extra bandwidth, I'd like to remind you that, once this idea catches on, spam will be greatly reduced. This reduction will MORE than make up for the slight increase in bandwidth created in querying the certifying servers. Also, the certifying servers can set time limits on when the certifications expire, and need to be re-downloaded (kind of like DHCP leases). A 'new' company that just applied for certification might have it's certificate set to expire almost instantly. This way, every email they send requires a download of the certificate. This allows the certificate to be pulled rapidly if they start spamming. After a month or two, it could be set to expire weekly or monthly.

      To sum up: Email Certification is reliable way of tracing the certified emails back to their originating server. This allows spammers to be identified unequivocally, and have their certification pulled. Email servers are NOT required to be certified, and anonymous email is still possible. Email recipients can, if they choose, set up their client to send uncertified emails to the trash, or to handle them however they wish. White lists and black lists are still possible. 'Hobby mailing lists' are still possible, certified or not. The extra bandwidth is minimal, and easily overshadowed by the reduction in spam being sen

    3. Re:Whew by swd2 · · Score: 1

      They have something like that already. http://bondedsender.org/ And its a scam that spamcop came up with. google "spamcop bondedsender" You have a good idea, but it would be abused. Who would control this? Some US goverment agency? Some new ORG thats just a front for the US gov like ICANN (ie; US DoC)? The best way to stop spam is to get people from purchasing crap from spam mailings. Just like JUNK POSTAL MAIL. IMHO

    4. Re:Whew by fredklein · · Score: 1

      They have something like that already. http://bondedsender.org/ And its a scam ....

      Well, my idea is not a scam. It wouldn't be run by one company, it would be a Free, Open Source solution.

      Who would control this? Some US goverment agency?

      That's the beauty of it- no one needs to 'control' it.

      The best way to stop spam is to get people from purchasing crap from spam mailings. Just like JUNK POSTAL MAIL. IMHO

      There's a problem with that: I've Never bought anything from a spam email, but I still get spam. I don't know of anyone who has ever bought anything from a spam email, but they still get spam. You see, it only takes literally 1 out of a million people to buy from a spam to make it worthwhile for the spammer to spam. Or, in other words, only 1 in 1,000,000 people respond to spams. That's already a pretty darn low number. I don't really see what can be done to lower that number. And since it's enough to keep the spammers spamming, there will always be spam.

    5. Re:Whew by Tweekster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My users put that authority in my hands, they dont want to deal with it and they dont have the time.

      I use the blacklists because it makes them happy, and they dont care if that single email is blocked, because only an idiot would rely 100% on email for something major.

      --
      The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
    6. Re:Whew by swd2 · · Score: 1
      My users put that authority in my hands, they dont want to deal with it and they dont have the time. I use the blacklists because it makes them happy, and they dont care if that single email is blocked, because only an idiot would rely 100% on email for something major.
      Well basicly most my users have the same with the default settings. But if they need to make sure a "friend" bypass any filters they have the power to do that. And to also raise there default score reject level. Or ban addresses. See what incoming email messages were rejected, etc. etc. Now this is done with newer mail server software (I use Surgemail). That doesn't require a full time mail admin changing settings, managing black/white lists for his end users.
    7. Re:Whew by FacePlant · · Score: 1


      I have a simple, foolproof idea to help eliminate spam.

      Email certification.


      I don't think so.

      Why?

      Volume, that's why.

      You used to have to actully prove, with documentation, that you were entitled to
      the domain name for which you were seeking an SSL cert. Prove, as in, here are the legal documents incorporating "example corporation", here is the registrar record showing
      example corporation as the registrant of example.com. Here's the documentation that
      I'm John Q. Example, Jr., CIO of example.com.

      Then the CA would presumably vet you. It was how the perception of trust was established
      for SSL in the early days.

      Now, the demand for SSL certs is too high to make it cost effective or timely to vet everybody. All you need is a pulse and a credit card, and a pulse is usually optional.

      It's just my opinion, but I'd reckon that there are more email users than web servers,
      maybe even by an order of magnitude.

      --
      My Heart Is A Flower
  2. "a devastating loss of personal freedom for..." by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Way to go down kicking and screaming inanities...

    1. Re:"a devastating loss of personal freedom for..." by BlogPope · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Well Spamhaus said their demise would be the end of the internet, so its basically kids in the play ground.

      Well, they are the ONLY Real Time Black list on the internet, which of course is the ONLY anti-spam measure available to mail admins, and I'm pretty sure email traffic volumes are orders of magnitude larger than other protocols, such as http & Bitorrent.

      So yeah, I agree with Slashdot in agreein with Spamhaus on the horros to be unleashed if this order had gone through.

      --
      My other car is a Popemobile
    2. Re:"a devastating loss of personal freedom for..." by cbhacking · · Score: 2, Informative

      Did they indeed? All I read was them claiming that it would mean another 50,000,000,000 spam emails a say hitting the servers. I realize they Internet already handles tons of spam, but... that is a lot.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    3. Re:"a devastating loss of personal freedom for..." by jaygridley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anyone notice that the case is referred to as Spamhaus v e360Insight on their main page? Kinda implies that they're the victim.

    4. Re:"a devastating loss of personal freedom for..." by Kierthos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hey, all parties involved may be chock full of hyperbole, but at least this judge made the correct call.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    5. Re:"a devastating loss of personal freedom for..." by tdemark · · Score: 1

      Kinda the same way that the Federal "Do Not Call" list is "a devastating loss of personal freedom for all U.S. citizens".

      And, by "all U.S. citizens", they both mean telemarketers and spammers.

      - Tony

    6. Re:"a devastating loss of personal freedom for..." by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Funny
      Don't you have a war to sign up for, you YELLOW Republican.
      Don't you have a five year plan to work on, you commie PINKO. :P

      (This is fun! Now someone do a libertarian one!)
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    7. Re:"a devastating loss of personal freedom for..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      (This is fun! Now someone do a libertarian one!)
      Don't you have an environmentally unfriendly industry to deregulate, you anti-GREEN libertarian?
    8. Re:"a devastating loss of personal freedom for..." by notnAP · · Score: 1
      I say they're right.

      The whole of the internet should exercise our personal freedom to contact e360, charge them for the call, and voice our opinions on matters from spam to porn, whether or not our calls and the costs to deal with them are wanted.

      And if they choose not to take our calls, we take them to court.

    9. Re:"a devastating loss of personal freedom for..." by jmauro · · Score: 1

      On appeals a lot of time the party names get flipped since the original suee is bringing an action against the suer.

      I do not know if that is the case here though.

    10. Re:"a devastating loss of personal freedom for..." by coolgeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "A devastating loss of cash and personal satisfaction for David Lindhardt"

      I'm not sure if the judge moonlights as an amateur comic, but his ruling sure cracked me up. Hope e360 burns up more of their money getting denied satisfaction by the legal system.

      I heard spamhaus got flooded with examples of spam from e360...maybe someone should put together a consortium of those people to go sue e360 for abuse and then ask for their domain registrar to suspend their domain. Now, that would be funny.

      --

      cat /dev/null >sig
    11. Re:"a devastating loss of personal freedom for..." by jaygridley · · Score: 1

      Maybe its referring to the appeal filed by Spamhaus on the 13th. I wasn't aware of one until I saw the article about the case on Groklaw.

  3. Go to the source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Please, for the sake of fairness, please go to the e360insight website Read for yourself what they have to say. Consider it carefully, go back later to gain additional insights. (Heh, I said insights.)

    1. Re:Go to the source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh please, for the love of God, I plead with you not to abuse the internet resources of e360insight. These good people are concerned about YOUR personal freedom, which you'd know if you went to their webpage to read their material. Please don't flood their contact page with insults and don't post random email addresses. I don't want people to put a huge loan on their web server -- I simply want each and every person at Slashdot to make up their own mind, based on their own exploration the information on their website

    2. Re:Go to the source by Gorshkov · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Please, for the sake of fairness, please go to the e360insight website Read for yourself what they have to say. Consider it carefully, go back later to gain additional insights. (Heh, I said insights.)

      Un-bloody-real .... I went and visited the poor benighted spammers. I couldn't resist the urge - I clicked on the "contact us" link. ANd what's the first thing it did? They wanted my EMAIL address.

      Well, they can contact me at dream-freaking@on.com - that's the one I gave when I posted the following comment to what they had on the link supplied:

      First - if you think I'm going to give a spammer my email address, you're sadly mistaken.

      Second - spamhaus, as you very well know, doesn't block a damned thing - individual mail admins - like ME - decide ON OUR OWN if we want to take their recommendations or not.

      And before you get pissy about a UK organisation ignoring a USA court, just thank god that they have, and that they CAN - becuase otherwise you'd be hauled to court in every country that had decent anti-spam legislation.

      And I'm pretty sure that you'd consider THAT to be an affront to the liberties of every red-blooded american as well, wouldn't you?

    3. Re:Go to the source by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just a quick note ... their contact form script requires a valid email address. Why not use nospam@360insight.com ... or admin@360insight.com, etc.

    4. Re:Go to the source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Please, oh please! In the memory of my dear departed Aunt Myrtle please don't abuse their contact page! If you want to provide them with insightful (heh, I said insightful again) commentary, it is only reasonable to provide them with a real email address so they can reply! Using a random fake email address when you contact them would just be wrong. These freedom loving people are fighting for your rights!

    5. Re:Go to the source by shamer · · Score: 1

      not-a-chance@yeahright.com

    6. Re:Go to the source by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Informative

      If the bandwidth becomes troublesome you could always call their media relations department at (772) 971-4816

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    7. Re:Go to the source by MooUK · · Score: 1

      Best idea I've read all day.

    8. Re:Go to the source by TheAlmightyChimp · · Score: 1

      Why not!

      I did!

      I dont agree with an eye for an eye type actions but

      They put a form up for feedback about the case

    9. Re:Go to the source by 6031769 · · Score: 4, Informative

      And please, people, take care not to use their https server instead as that would not only use up extra CPU on their server but would also reveal that they're running RHEL and that some chopper has left the port open.

      --
      Burns: We're building a casino!
      McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
    10. Re:Go to the source by 19061969 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I was going to ask them if they were interested in C|@l!s tabs. It's a once in a lifetime opportunity, so maybe I should write a script to tell them a few thousand times?

      --
      bang goes my karma... again...
    11. Re:Go to the source by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I clicked on the "contact us" link. ANd what's the first thing it did? They wanted my EMAIL address.

      Well, yeah; presumably they think you want to contact them so as to set up a dialogue with them, not a monologue. They may be stupid, no good lowlife spamming shits, but expecting an email address as part of a contact form is perfectly reasonable. (Not that I'd give them mine, of course, but that's beside the point)

      Well, they can contact me at dream-freaking@on.com

      This was one of my biggest pet hates a couple of years ago - people using syntactically-legal addresses on real domains that are nothing to do with them. Same goes for the guy who used an address at yeahright.com, which is also a registered domain.

      What if that's an actual, valid email address and you've just condemned some poor schmuck to even more spam? If you wouldn't trust a site with your own email address, don't trust it with a potentially valid one either; use a "fake but possible" tld (such as .tld, .ab.cd, etc) instead.

    12. Re:Go to the source by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      And yes, spoof your email address just like all good spammers.

      But unlike "all good spammers", don't use a valid domain; some of us are tired of getting 1500+ emails per day because some idiot decided to use our domain in their spoofed addresses.

    13. Re:Go to the source by tdemark · · Score: 2, Informative

      Which is why I always use example.com.

    14. Re:Go to the source by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Funny

      It doesn't matter - its just to pass the stupid email validation and rub their nose in it when they think the population is behind them. You can use george.bush@whitehouse.gov - though if you do, please make the message VERY supportive of them - (add in allusions to terr'rists on the net and how spamhaus is helping hide WMDs in North Korea and Syria).

    15. Re:Go to the source by yabos · · Score: 1

      Or just use e360insight.com mwahaha

    16. Re:Go to the source by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

      Whoever registered fake.com had to know what they were getting into...

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    17. Re:Go to the source by fostware · · Score: 1

      abuse@e360insight.com and postmaster@e360insight.com are always favorites :P

      --
      "We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
    18. Re:Go to the source by Eggplant62 · · Score: 1

      I don't suppose e360 tried registered mail, return receipt requested via snail mail, did they? Or did e360 simply send Spamhaus email from the same e360 servers that are blocklisted and then said Spamhaus didn't respond?

      I'm wishing I had a Pacer account.

    19. Re:Go to the source by jezor · · Score: 2, Informative

      Pacer's pretty cheap, but anyway, if you want to see the judge's current order, here it is:

      "This matter comes before the court on the motion of Plaintiff e360 Insight, LLC ("e360"), for a rule to show cause why Defendant The Spamhaus Project ("Spamhaus") should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the injunction issued by this court on September 13, 2006.

      Spamhaus has not appeared to defend the allegations against it in this case, but on October 13, 2006, it filed a notice of appeal in the Seventh Circuit seeking review of the default judgment entered on the same date as the injunction. Ordinarily, the filing of a notice of appeal divests a district court of jurisdiction to consider further matters in a case before it. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S. Ct. 400, 402 (1982). However, this rule does not extend to questions regarding compliance with an injunction whose effect has not been stayed. See Union Oil Co. of California v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 565-66 (7th Cir. 2000). Thus, we retain jurisdiction to consider the instant motion.

      In its moving papers, e360 requested three forms of relief for the claimed noncompliance: first, suspension of Spamhaus's domain name until it complies with the terms of the injunction; second, steps to prevent third parties from accessing Spamhaus's technology or permission to add them as defendants to this suit if they continue to do so; and third, a monetary sanction against Spamhaus for each day that it fails to comply with the injunction. When e360 appeared in court to present the motion, we noted the breadth of the requested relief and directed e360 to submit a draft order that was more tailored.

      The proposed order is limited to only the first remedy, suspension of the domain name by The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"), the entity responsible for coordinating unique identifiers used for Internet communication, or Tucows, Inc., the registrar through which Spamhaus obtained its domain name. Neither of these outfits are parties to this case. Though more circumscribed than the preceding request, this relief is still too broad to be warranted in this case. First, there has been no indication that ICANN or Tucows are not independent entities, thus preventing a conclusion that either is acting in concert with Spamhaus to such a level that they could be brought within the ambit of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d). Though our ability to enforce an injunction is not necessarily coterminous with the rule, the limitations on its scope inform an exercise of our power to address contempt. See, e.g., Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. v. DEV Industries, Inc., 91 F.3d 914, 920 (7th Cir. 1996). Second, the suspension would cut off all lawful online activities of Spamhaus via its existing domain name, not just those that are in contravention of this court's order. While we will not condone or tolerate noncompliance with a valid order of this court, neither will we impose a sanction that does not correspond to the gravity of the offending conduct.

      Accordingly, the motion for a rule to show cause is denied without prejudice.

      Dated: October 19, 2006 CHARLES P. KOCORAS U.S. District Court Judge"

      {Prof. Jonathan Ezor, Touro Law Center}

    20. Re:Go to the source by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      They appear to have tried to follow Spamhaus' rules, but Spamhaus won't have it..won't even tell them what the rules are, just that they've been "flagged" as spammers and there's no more discussion... which has been a known thing on slashdot for a while. The RBL guys are assholes... we all know that, it's inevitable that they'd get sued like this eventually.

      The question is what extent is Spamhaus' liability? On one hand they mearly maintain the list of know spam IP and domains.... they don't run the email servers, they don't make the final decision to /dev/null the emails... the email administrators do that. So they should be protected under the rules of basic "free speech". Consider their liability similar to the credit reporting agencies.. companies use credit ratings all the time, but I don't recall the reporting agencies haveing any legal responsibility other than to remove a bad post... if you can prove it! The onus is on the lender to make an educated decision about the customer.

      on the other hand, Admins are lazy, and most simply trust the RBL list without even checking. The RBL operators know this and abuse their position on many, many occasions, there's been many slashdot posts about how unfair these guys can be.. because they accept payment for their services, and know email admins are using those lists, when does their "beaurocatic abuse" become full blown "libel"? Now they are not located in the US, so e360's lawyers didn't do a very good legal job, because they should have known the company had no legally accountable assets in the USA. That's poor lawyer-ship. But the whole case is poor judge-ship because he should have known the case was out of his jusristiction and refused it in the first place. The lawyers were trying that stunt SCO pulled a few months ago (with the deposition expressly not allowed by the orginal court) where they intentionally misfile the suit out of juristiction to get an outcome expressly not allowed by another court/ expecting the court to "trap" them once they appear, then claim justistiction. Spamhaus didn't fall for it... good for them, but their tactics still leave them legally open for more suits.

    21. Re:Go to the source by VisceralLogic · · Score: 1

      Strangely, it didn't require any email address when I filled it out. I put in my first name, and my comments. No email, no phone... and it submitted just fine.

      --
      Stop! Dremel time!
    22. Re:Go to the source by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Maybe their validation is dumber than I imagined - if you don't put an email addy, it passes ...

    23. Re:Go to the source by J.Y.Kelly · · Score: 1

      I like to use root@mouse-potato.com (look it up)

    24. Re:Go to the source by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      carefull though, none of those names are on the reserved list in rfc2606 and .cd is actually a valid top level domain already.

      ab.cd is currently claims to be for sale! .tld while not official is so widely used in examples that its probablly safe but still best to stick to the officially reserved ones.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    25. Re:Go to the source by Rowanyote · · Score: 1

      If I had bandwidth to burn (a LOT of bandwidth), I think it would be interesting to register nowhere.com and see just how much spam comes in to the address noone@nowhere.com. I have had to stop using it as a fake on sites that remember, as it has inevitably already been used before.

      Rowanyote

    26. Re:Go to the source by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      dave@fuck-off-and-die.com

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    27. Re:Go to the source by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      .cd is actually a valid top level domain already

      Damnit - looks like I've discovered an equivlent to the "any post correcting spelling or grammar will contain at least one mistake of its own" rule. I was so sure .cd wouldn't exist I didn't even bother to check it... Turns out it's for the Democratcic Republic of the Congo.

      (Fortunately, I've never used it myself)

    28. Re:Go to the source by teknosapien · · Score: 1

      I'll give them an email address that I can kill First I 'll see if I can opt out. If I cant then maybe small claims court? I wouldn't make any $ but I sure would become a pain in the ass. Imagine if 5000 Small claims cases were filled against them? Yes I'm fishing, but not trolling

      --
      no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
    29. Re:Go to the source by Gorshkov · · Score: 1

      [blockquote]Did you read the whole article? Did you notice that they are very aware of your kind of activity? That they asked for the right to sue people like you for choosing to block their email from your own servers?[/blockquote]
      That's fine - I actually don't mind that at all.

      But I suspect that they'll have a hard time convincing a judge that my users - who ACTIVELY AGREE with how I filter my mail, and how I administer my mail server - that I don't have the right to do so.

      It's like me going to pick up the mail for my mother, and her asking me to leave any advertisements in the garbage. You really think Tony's pizza will be able to sue me for intereering with their right to send my mother their menu? Take it a step further. There is a company in town, that for a price, will send pizza parlour menus to every mailing address in town ..... for a fee. You think the judge would rule any differently because I threw 5,000 pizza menus in the garbage like she asked me to?

  4. Loss of personal freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    e360 Insight responded on its homepage, saying the judge's ruling was 'a devastating loss of personal freedom for all U.S. citizens'.

    It's true! Our constitutional right to not be able to get a dns lookup on spamhus.org has been torn away from us. Why oh why does Judge Kocoras hate us so much? :(
    1. Re:Loss of personal freedom by Geak · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now we are going to need bigger tubes to handle all the extra internets that will be getting. Does anybody know this judges email address and perhaps have a copy of spamhaus's RBL? Perhaps the judge's email address should be handed over to every spammer in the RBL. Then he will need a bigger tube to handle all the extra internets he will be getting. Maybe he will buy some of the Viagra advertised in the internets so he can have a bigger tube.

  5. Finally common sense, thank you by dindi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Oh well, it is nice to see that over rules and regulations sometimes common sense and the people behind it does not get punished.

    All i have to say about it after seeing 568 messages today in my mailbox. Yes, 2 is a valid mail, the rest is buy viagra and get a college degree scam.

    cheers

    1. Re:Finally common sense, thank you by AgNO3 · · Score: 2, Funny
      All i have to say about it after seeing 568 messages today in my mailbox. Yes, 2 is a valid mail, the rest is buy viagra and get a college degree scam.

      cheers


      College degree Scam??? You mean I am not really a Ph.D.?
      --
      OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
    2. Re:Finally common sense, thank you by sfjoe · · Score: 1

      Oh well, it is nice to see that over rules and regulations sometimes common sense and the people behind it does not get punished.

      Actually it is usually the case that common sense prevails under the law. However, that makes for a dull story and doesn't make the news.

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    3. Re:Finally common sense, thank you by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Thanks to spam email is almost useless now as a business tool. To have any sort of usefulness you have to install filters from hell and risk losing important email to them. The company that I work get 250,000 emails a day coming through the server. 75% of that is shit. 210,000 pieces of spam, and 40,000 messages that make it thought the filters. That is 1.5GB of fucking spam a day.

      I've been saying this for almost 10 years not but laws allowing us to sue the fucking spammer are not going to do it. We need to be able to sue the fucker that is advertising with spam. On all spam there has to be a phone number, address, or website if they are going to do any business. We need to be able to sue the motherfucker that answers that phone. We put that fucker out of business and the spam will go away.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    4. Re:Finally common sense, thank you by dindi · · Score: 1

      I agree, however it is also the users' faultm and admin's fault:

      1. SPF records are around and should be enforced. If people finally decided to only accept mail from valid (enabled) senders, spammers would have to rely on their own domains. That would cut SPAM into fractions.

      2. certificates, such as PGP (GPG) are around and can be used to accept mail. Only signed mail. I would go as far as paying a small fee for a sender address cert if everyone else did. Of course not to encrypt, just to sign.

      If not completely eliminate, some required minimum encryption grade would at least slow down signing/encryption process, and would require more effort to send a mail : e.g. other than an address, you would need the persons public key.

      But then again, I tell my supposedly tech friends to sign their mails, and they are so lazy asses, no one goes as far as downloading PGP ..... so do I care then if I lose their mail in the wind ? NO.

  6. GMAIL FTW! by EvilCowzGoMoo · · Score: 2
    Even though I am "currently using 94 MB (3%) of your 2776 MB".....


    I'd rather not have the other 97% filled with spam.


    Good call :)

    1. Re:GMAIL FTW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Eh, Gmail doesn't use Spamhaus.

    2. Re:GMAIL FTW! by EvilCowzGoMoo · · Score: 1
      This I did not know...

      However its likely that if spamhaus's claim that they do hold back 90% of the spam on the internet is true... even services that do not use spamhous would be indirectly effected.

      There are so many phishing attacks and so many people dumb enough to click them, that an increase in their spam would almost certainly mean an increase in my spam.

    3. Re:GMAIL FTW! by silentbozo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I recently started bouncing all the spam my filters can detect to a GMail account. After 1 week of operation, here's what GMail is reporting:

      "You are currently using 839 MB (30%) of your 2776 MB."

    4. Re:GMAIL FTW! by penix1 · · Score: 1

      "However its likely that if spamhaus's claim that they do hold back 90% of the spam on the internet is true... even services that do not use spamhous would be indirectly effected."

      Just how do you arrive at that conclusion? It's a blocklist that doesn't block shit if you (or your ISP) don't use it. They make that claim because there are a lot of mail admins that do use it. You are making the same assumption the spammers like this one are making. They don't block at the sender but at the receiving side. Spammers are free to send all they like. I don't have to receive it and spamhaus helps to determine who to block.

      B.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    5. Re:GMAIL FTW! by TwilightSentry · · Score: 1

      The way SMTP works, your message may "bounce" over a number of nodes before it hits its destination. If any of these nodes use Spamhaus's blacklist (And many major nodes do), the message will be blocked. This is good, because, if nodes with a lot of bandwidth are relaying messages between a number of nodes with less bandwidth, the latters' connections do not have to deal with a large amount of spam.

      --
      How to enable garbage collection on a system without protected memory: #define malloc() ((void *) rand())
    6. Re:GMAIL FTW! by ocelotbob · · Score: 1

      That was the original intent of SMTP. However, due to the fact that spammers will use these relays to block the true destination of a message, SMTP nowadays is pretty much point to point; relay servers are exceedingly rare. So no, gmail is not in any significant way, affected by spamhaus.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    7. Re:GMAIL FTW! by JPriest · · Score: 1

      They could be indirectly be impacted. The removal of spamhaus could make spamming a more provocative business, which wouldn't be good for anyone.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    8. Re:GMAIL FTW! by ocelotbob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really. A lot of spam these days comes from zombied/trojaned machines, which are already well covered by other blocklists, like CBL. Were spamhaus to go away, chances are spam levels would remain about the same for people not using the tools. Spammers just don't care if they're blocked or not, all things considered.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    9. Re:GMAIL FTW! by dodobh · · Score: 1

      It can bounce through a bunch of relays anyway.

      MUA -> Local server -> central corporate server -> outbound gateway -> MX as firewall -> delivery server.

      Just that most of these are either internal, or carefully control who can use them for relaying.

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    10. Re:GMAIL FTW! by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      What are you doing with my 2776 MB?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    11. Re:GMAIL FTW! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      I recently started bouncing all the spam my filters can detect to a GMail account. After 1 week of operation, here's what GMail is reporting: "You are currently using 839 MB (30%) of your 2776 MB."
      Gmail doesn't simply delete spam, it puts directly in a spam "folder", where it sits for 30 days before being automatically deleted. All that spam you've redirected is sitting there waiting for you, most of it probably tagged "spam". The number above tells us absolutely nothing about gmail's spam-catching ability.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    12. Re:GMAIL FTW! by ajs318 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I fixed a Microsoft Exchange server once. I installed Debian and Exim on it.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    13. Re:GMAIL FTW! by really? · · Score: 1

      I think he meant that all the stuff in that account was spam, as he's bouncing spam only to that account. So, almost 1GB a week ...

      --

      "Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
    14. Re:GMAIL FTW! by epee1221 · · Score: 1
      The number above tells us absolutely nothing about gmail's spam-catching ability.
      It seemed to me that the number was meant to stand on its own, not describe GMail's spam filter. In fact, it seems that GMail's spam filter is irrelevant here -- it's not how he determines what is spam (everything that gets sent to the account is being counted by the GP as spam). No, I think the lesson to be learned here is that people are getting a lot of spam (e.g. over 800 MB in a week).
      --
      "The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
  7. Damned activist judges... by chill · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...making law from the bench! This one ruling for some fooreen company over a good-old, red, white and blue U.S. homegrown! How dare he! Probably a Democrat and communist, too.

    What?

    Spam? Yeah, it is good with a little cheese and...

    Oh, THAT stuff!? Those guys need to be publically whipped and castrated! There ought to be a law that protects decent citizens from all that perverted material arriving in your mailbox without asking. I mean, one visit to whitehouse.com, fill in one little form and give 'em one little credit card and all of a sudden I get this crap in my mailbox! What if my kid opens my email?

    Won't somebody please think of the children?

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Damned activist judges... by Suhas · · Score: 3, Funny

      >>Won't somebody please think of the children? I am sure Mark Foley is thinking of the children.

  8. More at stake than just SPAM... by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really think that the judge realized that more was at stake than just SPAM. It has set an important precedant regarding the Internet and jurisdiction. Even though the US controls most of it, it is important to realize that the Internet is an ethereal place without solid jurisdictional boundaries. If the judge had signed away on pulling the domain name, it would have casted a devastating taint on how Law treats 'where' the Interent exactly is.

    --
    We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
    1. Re:More at stake than just SPAM... by EvilCowzGoMoo · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Notice that the Judge did not overturn the $11.7 million default judgment, only the attempt to suspend the domain name. While this is a victory in that we won't suddenly get hit with 10x more spam tomarrow... Spamhaus is not off the hook yet. This is likely to be just the start of some potentialy very good, or very bad legislation.

      We live in interesting times.

    2. Re:More at stake than just SPAM... by garcia · · Score: 1

      I really think that the judge realized that more was at stake than just SPAM.

      Judges already ruled that SPAM has no stake in this at all. Now if you're talking spam...

    3. Re:More at stake than just SPAM... by hey+hey+hey · · Score: 1
      This is likely to be just the start of some potentialy very good, or very bad legislation.

      I think you mean rulings. Courts rule, and Legislatures, well, legislate.

    4. Re:More at stake than just SPAM... by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      I'm not quite sure why Spamhaus didn't just say "no jurisdiction" from the get-go. Maybe they like the free press? It could get awfully expensive though, if the courts decide that, since they initially took action regarding the filing (in Illinois) then ignored it after getting it moved to federal level, they really are just in contempt of court. Of course, I'm pretty contemptuous of any court that grants a ruling in favor of a spammer against an anti-spam list maintainer, but Spamhaus probably shouldn't have switched tactics in the middle of the fight, not when they were winning. I'm surea sufficiently good lawyer can pull them out if this, but those are expensive...

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    5. Re:More at stake than just SPAM... by Herve5 · · Score: 1

      Indeed by maintaining the judgement he may have neared the day of an alternative european root DNS...
      FYI, there is already the working ORSN servers, http://european.de.orsn.net/tech-pubdns.php

      --
      Herve S.
  9. The straight dope by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's make one thing clear, the original judgment is of no value.

    Lindtard, e360 insight lawyer, actually LIED to the court by stating that Spamhaus did business in Illinois. This is patently false.

    Spamhaus has stated such to the judge, but the judge chose to ignore that advice and press forward with the case.

    Upon seeing that it would not be able to get heard by the court, Spamhaus wisely decided to withdraw completely. Being based in Britain, Spamhaus would not be bound by any judgment that would arise, and since the court chose to be bamboozled by the chickenboning spammers, the judgment rendered would be of no value anyways.

    The judge ruled in favour of the plaintiff by default, but such a judgment is ineffective as US judgments do not apply to the UK.

    The case redux came about when chickenboning Lindtard drew an amazingly broad order that the judge refused to enterinate, as being "far too broad in regard to the violation effected".

    However, given the potential disruption if Spamhaus.org would be suspended, a prominent Chicago law firm has offered it's services pro-bono.

    So we can expect the chickenboning Lindtard's gang of e360 insight to have their gonads flattenned pretty quick by the court pretty soon (if not by Angel's Anvil Delivery Service)...

    Let this be a warning to spammers: YOU CHICKENBONERS CANNOT EXPECT TO WIN, AND AS PEOPLE ARE GETTING MORE AND MORE TIRED OF YOUR SHENANIGANS, YOU CAN BE EXPECTED TO BE HUNTED AND SEE YOUR SPAMMING OPERATIONS KILLED PRETTY MUCH EFFECTIVELY.

    1. Re:The straight dope by mr_matticus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, if the judge had ordered ICANN (an American corporation) to pull the plug on the domain, it most definitely would have affected them, regardless of the physical jurisdiction of the court. The amount of power the US could potentially have over the Internet is rather frightening--which is why there is an Internet governance debate. The biggest sticking point is the lack of an international checking body--a sort of UN for the Internet--that could intervene and stop a US court order from overstepping its bounds, as a shutdown order here would be.

    2. Re:The straight dope by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the US started doing that, it wouldn't take long before the rest of the world stopped using ICANN's top-level domain, and effectively put the whole US on a subnet of some even higher level non-US domain.

    3. Re:The straight dope by nuzak · · Score: 4, Informative

      > Lindtard, e360 insight lawyer

      Dave Linhardt is e360. It's a one-man shop. Just another ranting chickenboner -- you should have seen him carry on on NANAE. I can't wait to see him try to collect his precious judgement in a UK court.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    4. Re:The straight dope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, if the judge had ordered ICANN (an American corporation) to pull the plug on the domain, it most definitely would have affected them, regardless of the physical jurisdiction of the court.

      Actually, even if the judge ordered ICANN to suspend their domain, ICANN would not be able to comply, because it is not within ICANN's power to do so.

      The judge could order the registrar to pull the domain though.

      The amount of power the US could potentially have over the Internet is rather frightening

      The US has minimal power over the internet. The internet is a set of standards for computer networks. The US has some power over some domain names because the companies that manage these domain names are located in the US.

      And should the US abuse its position, I'm sure other countries will compensate. Why does ICANN have such power? Because internet users say that they do. Why are the DNS roots authoritative? Because internet users say that they are. Should a critical mass of internet users disagree, then they lose this power.

      Despite all the bitching about ICANN, generally speaking, they do a decent job. Certainly far better than the UN/ITU proposals to bring it under the control of the dictator's debating club on the east river.

    5. Re:The straight dope by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      Of course I've seen him rant on NANAE. He's almost as funny as Tim "Put that bottle down" Bolen...

    6. Re:The straight dope by oohshiny · · Score: 1

      The judge ruled in favour of the plaintiff by default, but such a judgment is ineffective as US judgments do not apply to the UK.

      Except, of course, if the people ever do any business in the US. And for anybody involved in computers, that's kind of hard to avoid. Viz the arrest of a transit passenger running an on-line gambling site legally, outside the US.

    7. Re:The straight dope by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      If Spamhaus are so British, why do they give their prices in US Dollars :

      "Prices are quoted for convenience in US Dollars. UK/European VAT Residents need to add UK VAT at 17.5%. Data Feed is a service supplied and maintained by an independent contractor licensed by The Spamhaus Project to sell and provide access by subscription to Spamhaus DNSBL data."

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    8. Re:The straight dope by makomk · · Score: 1

      If Spamhaus are so British, why do they give their prices in US Dollars

      Because far more people know the conversion rate from their currency to US dollars than do to UK pounds?

    9. Re:The straight dope by cortana · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Despite all the bitching about ICANN, generally speaking, they do a decent job. Certainly far better than the UN/ITU proposals to bring it under the control of the dictator's debating club on the east river.
      This is so true, and it is refreshing to be reminded that I'm not the only one who thinks that turning control of the DNS over to the UN would be a disaster.
    10. Re:The straight dope by cortana · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure, but I have the feeling that there may just be a clue to the answer to your question buried in the question itself.

    11. Re:The straight dope by davecb · · Score: 1
      Fortunately, the registrar in question is in Canada.

      --dave

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    12. Re:The straight dope by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2, Informative

      This does only apply to criminal judgment, not civil ones (as in the case of Spamhaus). A criminal judgment would never has been rendered this way, as criminal rules of proceeding prevent a judgment to be entered when the defendant is not present.

    13. Re:The straight dope by dniq · · Score: 1

      What if registrar is also NOT in the US?

    14. Re:The straight dope by jezor · · Score: 1

      Of course, if Spamhaus ever wanted to do a deal to be acquired by a U.S.-operating company, this could become a very big issue. Imagine the acquisition agreement: "Spamhaus hereby represents and warrants to Acquiror that it has no outstanding unpaid judgments, liabilities, claims, debts or obligations." Umm......?

    15. Re:The straight dope by oohshiny · · Score: 1

      The point is that the arrest shows that the US is more than willing to go through pretty extraordinary lengths to make foreigners subject to its legal system.

      Even a big civil judgement against someone in the US is not to be taken lightly, in particular for someone in the computer business.

      In fact, while the judge may not shut down the domain for the purpose of shutting down Spamhaus, he may yet transfer it as a "valuable asset".

    16. Re:The straight dope by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      Certainly. But it wouldn't happen overnight, and the economic losses of losing the Internet globally for even just a few days would be a tremendous body blow.

    17. Re:The straight dope by TekPolitik · · Score: 1

      if the judge had ordered ICANN (an American corporation) to pull the plug on the domain, it most definitely would have affected them

      There were two reasons given by the court for not issuing the requested order:
      1. You haven't even established facts that would give this court jurisdiction to issue the order, you bonehead; and
      2. Even if this court did have jurisdiction to issue that kind of order against a non-party, it would be way too broad in relation to the conduct.
      For me (as it was for the court) the most important part was lack of jurisdiction to issue an injunction restraining a third party who is not acting in a closely connected way for the purpose of furthering the conduct of the defendant.
    18. Re:The straight dope by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      I see there is some confusion over my comment here. Allow me to clarify.

      I was not referring to this case, as resolved. ICANN was neither named nor involved in this dispute at the current time. My comment responded to the notion that the decisions and actions of US courts with regard to the Internet does not affect other countries. That is patently false. If this case had continued further down the chain, ICANN would have had to get involved, given the threat to the Internet that would be caused by such rulings.

      Also, at no point did I claim ICANN would comply with any such order, that ICANN is doing a bad job at managing the Internet, or that I believe the Internet should be turned over to the UN. The point is that the US has a tremendous amount of control and solely possessed power over the Internet--something many people don't like. This court ruling, had it gone the other way, would have inflamed their objections precisely because this is the sort of action that is not within the jurisdiction of any court in the United States to decide.

    19. Re:The straight dope by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      the registry is still in the USA whereever the registrar is and the registry certainly has the power to block a domain being added.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  10. Why by 1310nm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's see, a bunch of guys puts together a database of known spammers, which people then use for RBLs. This is quite unfair to the spammers! Anyone with at least a peanut in the noggin should have called bullshit on the lawsuit before it even got legs.

    1. Re:Why by kelk1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But bull is all over the place. It seems to me that spam should be addressed just like the no phone call list. Make it worldwide and addressed by whatever institution that can.

      But when we (and /. people are likely to filter out 90% of the crap) receive again and again, for years and years, messages targeted at get 'some brand of stay hard all night' pills or 'get bigger and longer' miracle solution, isn't there be an easier way to get rid of the pest at the source itself?

      There are many scavenger occupations (and maybe all are) but the real cause is the source of the distributed product. Or am I missing anything? The same goes with all this ssh login attempts. They all originate from the same sources and there is a distinct lack of prosecution.

      PS: what do you mean by plain *old* text?

    2. Re:Why by Legion303 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "isn't there be an easier way to get rid of the pest at the source itself?"

      Yes: a good rifle.

    3. Re:Why by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

      Uh because spam house for reasons listed in the previous articles did not show up for the court case giving the judge no choice but to rule in favor of the complainant. (see the part where e360 said spamhouse does business in the us but they don't so they just gave the judge a nice piss off) Basically the judge wanted spam house to come to Illinois to prove they didn't do business there (lame) and once the decision was made, well cascade failure of the judicial system. I love it when /.'s make really dumb statements about what's lame based on simple stories that do not in detail explain the full reasoning behind the events in Question.

      --
      OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
    4. Re:Why by prockcore · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Let's see, a bunch of guys puts together a database of known spammers


      That's your problem right there. They put together a database of *reported* spammers. Our local newspaper was erroneously put on a blacklist for spamming. In order to be removed they had to donate $50 to an approved charity. The *only* charity on the list? That's right, spamhaus's legal defense fund.

      I don't use blacklists because the people who run them are extortionists.
    5. Re:Why by maxume · · Score: 1

      Haha. This only works if you think a world where you have to defend yourself with deadly force against any idiot who thinks he has a greviance against *you* would be fun. There's way to many idiots.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Why by sk8king · · Score: 1

      That is what has happened to us. One of our mail servers has been listed on one blacklist [I believe SORBS, but I'm not sure] for a very long time. The only way to get it delisted was to donate $50 to some charity [they didn't specify though]. I was just checking and couldn't find it listed so maybe they delisted it after a year or so.

      But that was annoying. The lists should expire IP addresses after a period of time [1 day-1 month or whatever]. This was the only list that we experienced this problem with.

    7. Re:Why by Tweekster · · Score: 1

      those telemarketers are not stealing third parties resources to route their phone calls. They are not using viruses to set up phone relays out.

      --
      The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
  11. The important thing to take away from this by grasshoppa · · Score: 4, Funny

    http://www.e360insight.com/index.html

    You will notice that, at the bottom of the page, there is a contact us type button.

    I think we've all learned something important here today.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:The important thing to take away from this by rdoger6424 · · Score: 1
      I think we've all learned something important here today.
      that the GNAA may just be useful for something?
      --
      "Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
    2. Re:The important thing to take away from this by dubbreak · · Score: 4, Funny

      As long as you are visiting the site you may as well download this 191 page pdf. If we all download it we can better understand the case. This 27 page pdf might be worth checking out as well, you know, to get the facts straight.

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:The important thing to take away from this by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

      What I found funny is your Email address is a required field in the form. There is no way I'm giving them my Email address.

      I found it delightfully ironic.

      My mail server uses spamhaus. I gave went ahead and gave it to them. :D

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    4. Re:The important thing to take away from this by dw604 · · Score: 1

      Oops, I downloaded it twice!

    5. Re:The important thing to take away from this by mei_mei_mei · · Score: 1

      Me too, just in case I misplace one copy of this very important document ;-)

    6. Re:The important thing to take away from this by molnarcs · · Score: 1
      Copy this into a textfile, then sh textfile.sh:
      !/bin/sh
      x=1
      while [ "$x" -le 600 ]; do
      wget http://www.e360insight.com/Motion-for-TRO.pdf
      x=$(expr $x + 1)
      sleep 2
      done
      This will download it a few times :)
    7. Re:The important thing to take away from this by walt-sjc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um, you DO realize that this spammer, like most, uses zombie machines too. A fact of life is that not all zombie machines are listed with spamhaus. Anyway, good luck and enjoy your future dramatic increase in spam. Also be aware that your email address may also be used in spam "Joe Job's" (If you don't know what a joe job is, I suggest you look it up.)

    8. Re:The important thing to take away from this by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter. Given the measures I take on the server, I see about 2 to 3 spams a week.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    9. Re:The important thing to take away from this by VisceralLogic · · Score: 1

      Hmm, their server seems to be holding up pretty well!

      --
      Stop! Dremel time!
    10. Re:The important thing to take away from this by tico26 · · Score: 1

      $ while [ i = i ]
      do
      wget http://www.e360insight.com/Motion-for-TRO.pdf -O /dev/null
      done

      that should do it!

  12. Ruling against Spamhaus still stands... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Informative

    The judge denied e360insight's motion to suspend the Spamhaus domain, but that doesn't mean the original ruling against Spamhaus was vacated. As far as I can tell, that still stands.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Ruling against Spamhaus still stands... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The judge denied e360insight's motion to suspend the Spamhaus domain, but that doesn't mean the original ruling against Spamhaus was vacated. As far as I can tell, that still stands.

      Yes, they got a judgment against Spamhaus. Judgments are meaningless if they aren't enforceable. Good luck enforcing it in the USA, since Spamhaus does not do business in the USA and has no assets in the USA to seize.

      While some foreign judgments are enforceable in the UK, e360insight will have to go to a UK court and explain why their default judgment is valid, and why US law applies to a UK company which does no business in the USA. And since they're now in the UK, e360insight will have to explain why they are violating UK law relating to spam.

      Highly unlikely to be enforced.

    2. Re:Ruling against Spamhaus still stands... by penix1 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yes, they got a judgment against Spamhaus. Judgments are meaningless if they aren't enforceable. Good luck enforcing it in the USA, since Spamhaus does not do business in the USA and has no assets in the USA to seize.


      Careful here. They DO have assets in the USA.

      From http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/answers.lasso?section= Spamhaus%20SBL

      For high redundancy there are over 40 public SBL mirrors located in many nations around the world. Each SBL mirror is independently run as a free service to the Internet community and all respond in realtime to public queries of sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org. The SBL DNS mirrors are located in: Argentina, Belgium, China, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, Singapore, Spain, South Africa, Venezuela, the UK and USA.


      They have 3 mirror servers located in the US according to the map on that page. Granted, loss of those mirrors won't have too much of an effect but it is still a US asset.

      B.
      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    3. Re:Ruling against Spamhaus still stands... by strstrep · · Score: 1

      Their whois info points to tucows as their registrar. Tucows is registered as in Canada. So no, they don't quite have a domain registered in the US.

    4. Re:Ruling against Spamhaus still stands... by toriver · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not if "independently run" means "not run by us but by volunteers" or the like.

  13. Update on botnet spammer by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    Marginally irrelevant, but good news on spam: Update on Jeanson James Ancheta, botnet spammer. The short version: he's now Federal inmate number 32392-112 at the California City Correctional Institution.

    1. Re:Update on botnet spammer by 19061969 · · Score: 1

      Trouble? I doubt it. If he's a 20 year old boy, I imagine he'll be *very* popular with the other inmates.

      Especially the big buy named Bubba ("You're *my* little puppy now boy!")

      --
      bang goes my karma... again...
    2. Re:Update on botnet spammer by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      You've got mail... from a correctional facility!

  14. GOOD! by Chas · · Score: 1

    I'd been hoping something this stupid wouldn't be allowed to stand long...

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  15. SPEWS Memory by Yehooti · · Score: 1

    Wasn't so long ago that another org was fighting this battle vigorously. It wasn't the courts that put them down though. It was the blasted Spammers!

    1. Re:SPEWS Memory by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      To what org do you refer? You reference SPEWS in your subject line, but SPEWS is still up and running, and in fact was never actually put down.

  16. Spamhaus should have said "no jusrisdiction" by cbhacking · · Score: 2, Insightful
    at the start... but they didn't. FTA:
    Had Spamhaus made the "no jurisdiction" argument at the onset, it may very well have gotten the case dismissed. Instead, it finds itself in the undesirable and difficult position of having to appeal a summary judgment.
    I hope to hell they're able to avoid the default judgement in any case, but from what it looks like they successfully fought the Illinois filing (by arguing that they weren't in Illinois, and getting it moved up to the Federal level... not that they're in the USA either). However, they then changed tactics and ignored the federal proceedings entirely. Now they have a Contempt of Court, a huge default judgement, and the shield of "no jurisdiction" seems weaker since they didn't use it to begin with.

    All that Spamhaus has "won" is not getting their domain registration pulled. That's great, but the current situation in the US courts basically says they need to pay up, and nothing so far except their location has said otherwise. They may have to fight it, in an appeals court, in the US (where they will have to pay their own legal fees even if they win) and that could be... bad.
    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  17. Re: The exact nature of the email e360 sends... by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    I seem to recall a CAN-SPAM law passing some time back, requiring some firm restrictions on the type of mail sent. This led to the rash of fake names, some of which are hysterical, like "Amelia H. Beehives".

    Has anyone "gathered data" by requesting say 10 gigs worth of the email that e360 sends, parsed it to probable 98% which violates CAN-SPAM as being unsolicited, then slam the daylights out of e360?

    I know a tiny bit about the technology of bulk emailing. Exactly what would be stopping me from sending 10 million emails to that contact address? It's EVEN SOLICITED!!

    One of you SlashDot Lawyers, help me out here. Did someone miss a glorious chance at Eye for Eye justice?

    "I hereby sentence you to receiving the opinion of every adult american, by email, all 110 million of them"

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  18. "Contact us" script on E360Insight is a joke by postmortem · · Score: 2, Informative

    go ahead, ./ers, spam the spamers: their contact.php script is a sad effort. There's no check whether fields are valid.

    http://www.e360insight.com/contact.php

  19. Note to E360INSIGHT: FUCK YOU by merc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    E360: I'm the head of network abuse for Arizona's oldest ISP and your IP addresses have been in our filters here LONG before the Spamhaus complaints against you.

    There is a very hot spot for you in hell someday.

    This decision has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, it's about scum spammers taking advantage of the legal system.

    Spammers: Die In A Fire.

    Spamhaus: Keep doing a good job.

    For those that think I'm trolling, look at my slashdot ID number, I've been around a long time.

    --
    It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
    1. Re:Note to E360INSIGHT: FUCK YOU by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Funny

      For those that think I'm trolling, look at my slashdot ID number, I've been around a long time.

      Newbie.

    2. Re:Note to E360INSIGHT: FUCK YOU by wknoxwalker · · Score: 1

      An experienced troll...

    3. Re:Note to E360INSIGHT: FUCK YOU by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      I was going to say something similar, but you out-rank me in this penis-size contest.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  20. This ruling is PRO freedom of speech by merc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The freedom of speech also means the freedom to NOT listen to speech.

    This is a win for those who believe in property rights.

    My servers. My rules.

    --
    It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
    1. Re:This ruling is PRO freedom of speech by tomstdenis · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's high time I roll out the "what the 1st admendment actually says" talk ...

      1st admendment is to prevent the GOVERNMENT from abridging your right to speech/expression. I can tell you to get off my servers all I want. I can ask someone else to filter your access to my servers as well.

      The government CANNOT mandate that a filter be used however, but this is not the case here. ...

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    2. Re:This ruling is PRO freedom of speech by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      but, but, but, the children!

      What I don't get, is that these adults are now saying we have to protect our children from the same "evil" sources they were privy to. If the evil temptations warp fragile young minds so much, who the fuck are they to think they're sane enough to make rules up for the rest of us?

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  21. Message I just sent them on their feedback page... by dovgr · · Score: 1

    Are you kidding? It is a freedom for all the mail users of the world *not* to have to wade through the tons of garbage that money corrupted companies like yours spew out to the world without a bit of consideration of the wishes of people who spend time and money to access their email. You may enjoy everyday getting ads featuring male member enlargers, Viagra cures, chinese plastic molds, instant insurance, etc, but most of the users don't. But I'm sure you don't care about users. In the freedom you feature all natural reserves, air space, sound space, nature scenary, will be filled with plastic ads. It's the "freedom" to pump to people what they don't want to see wherever they are, whenever you receive money.

  22. Meth addicts - please read! by seanvaandering · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you are a reporter working on a deadline, you can call our media relations department at (772) 971-4816. Select the option to have us paged if you need to reach us immediately.

    Anyone hooked on meth tonight and feel like making a few phone calls?

    1. Re:Meth addicts - please read! by nbauman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually it's telephone harassment in some states to call people repeatedly. My crazy neghbor kept calling me all night, among other harassments, so I had him busted. It was nice to see the cops take him away in handcuffs after all his threats. He finally moved.

      In New York State, it's harassment to call somebody 2 or more times between the hours of (I think) 11pm and 8am.

      Not that they don't deserve it.

      So don't do it.

      Or if you do it, don't get caught.

      They seem to be litigous SOBs.

    2. Re:Meth addicts - please read! by plaxion · · Score: 1

      Do bloggers count as independant reporters? I wonder how many of them might have a few "questions" for them?

    3. Re:Meth addicts - please read! by fdiskne1 · · Score: 1

      In New York State, it's harassment to call somebody 2 or more times between the hours of (I think) 11pm and 8am.

      Yeah, so all you Slashdotters out there, don't call more than once, but at least call once. How many Slashdotters are there anyway? Just one page per Slashdotter should be plenty methinks.

      --
      But why is the rum gone?
  23. No jurisdiction. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

    There was no jurisdiction on the court over ICANN. A court can't issue a an order
    against a non-party to a case.

    In California, that is why there is a joinder in divorce cases, to get the pension plans and such to be subject to the orders of the court.

  24. Who is his cellmate? by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

    Instead of sending a stupid note to the spammer, why not send his cellmate some penis enlargment pills and instant cialis tabs? Of course if his cellmate has an erection that last for more than 4 hours they both should get medical attention.

  25. Law by slidersv · · Score: 1

    OMG the law works
    *hugging judge*

    --
    there is no issue with my network
  26. outta curiosity by atarione · · Score: 1

    do you suppose those fuckers have a spam filter on their mail server???

    and if so is it using spamhaus's list???????

    --
    actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
  27. Open letter to e360Insight by golodh · · Score: 1
    I have sent E360Insight the following reply, while giving them the following email address: e360insight.3.golodh@spamgourmet.com

    Let me explain this first. Spamgourmet is an organistion that allows you to give out limited-use email aliases of the form anyname.n.yourname@spamgourmet.com.

    -Anyname can be any alphanumerical string (i don't know how long, but be sensible).

    -n stands for the number of emails that will be relayed to your own email account (called the "protected account").

    -yourname is the alias you gave Spamgourmet to link to your real, protected, email address.

    Spamgourmet keeps a counter for each email address. After the counter has hit "n", any further emails are redirected to dev/null. So in the above address to e360Insight I will receive at most 3 emails, after which everything is consigned to the bit-bucket. Neat eh?

    Open letter to E360Insight

    Dear Sirs,

    It may have escaped your notice that your reasoning that somehow US courts would have jurisdiction over the _compilation_ of spammer-block-lists is at fault, as Spamhaus is a UK based organisation and as such immune from US laws (except for such acts as it commits in venues under US jurisdiction). For that reason the proper venue for binging lawsuits agains Spamhaus for _compilation_ of their spam-block-list is the UK.

    I would further like to call your attention to the fact that Spamhaus as such does not, in any way or description, block or censor emails. This is an inaccuracy on your part. Spamhaus merely holds available, and distributes on demand, lists of domains and IP addresses that, on the balance of probability, belong to, are under the control of, or fail to take reasonable precautions against, senders of unsollicited bulk email. Spammers in short. It is then up to the system administrators of organisations and/or ISP's to actually block or flag such email. Therefore the proper defendants who are subject to US laws in your case would be the system administrators of individual ISP's or organisations who block your emails or even individual Internet users who _authorise_ their ISP to apply email blocking technology.

    I view the phenomenon of unsollicted commercial email (spam) in itself a form of theft since it uses a disproportionate amount of bandwidth and infrastructure (that I pay for through connection fees to my ISP) without proper compensation, and effectively renders unprotected individual email accounts unusable by deluging them with spam. I hope you agree.

    Given the awful volume of spam clogging the Internet I consider it unreasonable for organisations that collate spam blocklists, system administrators who use such blocklists, or users who authorise their ISP to use automatic spam filtering technology, to give any possible spammer the benefit of the doubt. Given the known fact that all spammers attempt to disguise their activities, assume a patina of legitimacy, use unprotected email relays, or otherwise attempt to bypass blocking measures, servers and IP addresses must simply be blocked upon a "balance of probability" or "reasonable suspicion". If not this creates an opportunity for abuse that spammers can drive a truck through (or, as is more likely, a load of spam). Unfortunately it would seem that in your case the "balance of probability" does not come down in your favour.

    In addition it is my considered opinion that this purely pragmatic consideration trumps all and any "freedom of speech" arguments that one hears against proper filtering. Concerning your freedom of speech argument, I as an Internet user, am perfectly happy not to receive any commercial emails (bona-fide or otherwise), I have absolutely no difficulties with bona-fide commercial emails being inadvertantly blocked, and I am happy to authorise my ISP to block or flag any email that even remotely resembles spam (even if there should be false positives). If I miss an important email (unlikely) I will take steps with my ISP. If I want informat

  28. "Does not do business in Illinois" argument by louissypher · · Score: 2, Informative

    People keep pointing to the issue that Spamhaus does not "do business" in Illinois as a reason that this lawsuit is bogus. Here in Iowa, my employer pays Spamhaus multi thousands of dollars a year to be provided zone transfers of the xbl and sbl. I'm sure there is someone in Illinois doing the same. Would this not be considered doing business in Illinois? With that said, I've been watching this story with intense interest as my job becomes much harder if something were to happen to Spamhaus suddenly.

    --
    www.bleepyou.com
    1. Re:"Does not do business in Illinois" argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here in Iowa, my employer pays Spamhaus multi thousands of dollars a year to be provided zone transfers of the xbl and sbl. I'm sure there is someone in Illinois doing the same. Would this not be considered doing business in Illinois?

      Excellent question. The question of where does a transaction occur is an old one, and there is a great deal of legal precedent to determine the answer.

      Did your transaction take place in Iowa or the UK? Is Spamhaus in Iowa? Is Spamhaus licensed/registered to do business in Iowa? Does Spamhaus collect Iowa sales tax? On the other hand, Spamhaus is registered to do business in the UK, and collects UK sales tax. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the transaction took place in the UK, and the goods were exported from the UK to Iowa.

      Further, if you read the fine print on your agreement, Data Feed is a service supplied and maintained by an independent contractor licensed by The Spamhaus Project to sell and provide access by subscription to Spamhaus DNSBL data, so that further suggests that Spamhaus does not do business in Iowa. Even if the transaction did occur in Iowa, it would be the independent contractor who does business there.

    2. Re:"Does not do business in Illinois" argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's not an either/or situation.

      The transaction takes place in both places simultaneously.

      Why don't you go read about minimum contacts?

  29. Re:About Time by jacksonj04 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Minor point, "SPAM" is a trademark of Hormel Foods. You mean "spam". They get quite irritated about this.

    --
    How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
  30. Liberal Judges by ruisantos · · Score: 1

    [sarcasm]Plese stop those liberal judges. They just did "a devastating loss of personal freedom for all U.S. citizens'[/sarcasm]

  31. Re:enterinating judges by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    I find it even worse when they burninate.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  32. Bullshit by schon · · Score: 1

    I call bullshit.

    Spamhaus doesn't charge (or require "donations") to be delisted.

    Provide some proof for your absurd assertions, or STFU.

    1. Re:Bullshit by 1310nm · · Score: 1

      Would it matter if they did? It's a private company, no? They can do whatever they please.

      Since when was the government involved in private options regarding email blacklisting? Did I miss the memo?

  33. I suggest following e360Insight's advice by pseudorand · · Score: 5, Interesting

    e360Insight's web site urges us to contact our Senators and Representatives, which is just what I did:

    Dear Senator|Representative <XYZ>:

    e360Insight, an American company, has recently sued Spamhaus, a British company, claiming that Spamhous's service, which lists the e-mail addresses and domain names of known spammers, has violated e360Insight's rights.

    Spamhaus provides an invaluable service. Those of us responsible for administering e-mail services know and love the company. Though most users aren't aware of it, almost anyone who uses e-mail receives less unwanted e-mail because of Spamhaus.

    e360Insight, as best I can tell from their website, is a major SENDER of unsolicited and/or unwanted SPAM messages. Their argument is incorrect because only individual e-mail administrators have the ability to block e-mail. Spamhaus has no such ability. We CHOOSE to use or ignore Spamhaus recommendations. If such recommendations compromised the e-mail service we provided, we would quickly stop using them due to user complaints.

    A federal court has already ordered Spamhaus to pay $11.7 million (an unenforceable measure, since Spamhaus isn't in the US). e360Insight has also asked that Spamhaus's domain be shut down (which was was rejected by U.S. District Judge Charles Kocoras). Please encourage Judget Kocoras and any other federal judges involved to dismiss e360Insight's frivolously lawsuit and protect the rights of American's to use Spamhaus, a valuable service that makes e-mail a usable form of communication.

    http://www.house.gov/

    http://www.senate.gov/

  34. Mail address to e360 CEO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You can reach David Linhardt at dave@e360insight.com

  35. do it by Abedneg0 · · Score: 1

    You can send your personal message of moral support to e360insight here: http://e360insight.com/contact.php I sure did. If enough of the ./ crowd join in, we can make them feel the same way all of us feel every day when we get their spam.

  36. Or use browser tabs by epee1221 · · Score: 1
    In fact it looks like if you just use the browser back button you can submit the same message over and over and let them know what you feel and how it feels.
    I just have the submit button open the new page in a new tab. The page with the filled-out form stays there in the front tab, and I can send the same comment hundreds of times in a minute.
    --
    "The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
  37. He's defending your rights! by dieth · · Score: 1
    Mr. Linhardt's is commenting on the court's ruling issued on October 19, 2006 regarding e360's proposed order to suspend the spamhaus.org domain. e360 proposed the order to the court in an effort to enforce the court's judgment against Spamhaus for damaging e360's lawful business and the rights of its customers to receive their email messages. - e360insight.com's website

    He's defending your Rights to receive His spam, because you know you want his spam!
  38. e360 Slashdotted!! (eom) by ukemike · · Score: 1

    e360 Slashdotted!! (eom)

    --
    -- QED
  39. You misspelled that... by ZxCv · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's spelled "N00B13".

    ;-)

    --

    Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
  40. Not so fast by rrz103 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The judge didn't rule in favor of Spamhaus but instead, denied e360's proposed order which was an attempt to enforce the court's original judgment. That original judgment still stands against Spamhaus. Although there are obvious issues of enforcement, this may certainly be an impediment against Spamhaus in the future (that is, if they ever expand operations into the U.S. or some other scenario). There is an appeal pending in which the original judgment could be overruled but a brief has yet to be filed.

  41. Why can't we shut them down? by jma05 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am being naive here. I can understand why it may be a bit difficult Joe Spammer who operates from basement and hides hides his identity. But a company like e360 should be easy to target. Right? Should not all we do be

    1.) file a class action lawsuit
    2.) ask them to show their full "client" email list to a judiciary (under NDA maybe)
    3.) check with recipients of randomly selected emails - if they really did ask to be sent all these "advertisements".

  42. Re:About Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As irritated as they may well be, in the context of the IT industry its not their trademark and _never_ has been. Their trademark on "SPAM" only applies to food.

    Hormel Foods arent entitled to defraud or threaten anyone via invalid or false trademark claims. Please dont encourage them to do so, and please dont propagate the lie that their trademark applies to all industry segments.

  43. A More Heartfelt Letter To e360Insight by ElboRuum · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Dear Fuckers,

    I won't bore you with a legal analysis, nor will I attempt to use such things as "logic" and "reason" to express my views. That shit has long since circled the drain and fallen down the stack. No, if you truly must "understand" what this ruling means to most people, imagine a Jabberwocky. Got that image? Okay, now picture a vorpal blade... now the blade goes snicka-snack.

    You see, I hate advertising. In all forms.

    Why, you may ask?

    Well, that's easy. All advertising is predicated on the idea that you need to be informed of a company's wares because you either a) don't know the company exists, b) don't know the products exist, or c) don't know how much you really, really need those products to be a well-adjusted, happy human being.

    And this is really bunk. Most people who actually DO need something either already know where to get it, or are certainly capable of finding out. Your industry predicates its entire existence on convincing people to buy things they don't need, and as such, serves no purpose that we could not easily do without.

    And you know what, if people stopped for a minute and thought about it, they'd probably reach the same conclusion.

    Your industry pollutes the collective consciousness with meaningless phrases like "Zero Money Down" and "Easy Terms" and "No interest until 2007". Billboards and signs and junk mail and commercials and banner ads blight our landscapes and consign beauty and utility to the gloppy murk of both material and virtual ignominy.

    So you will, of course, pardon my lack of sympathy for the "free speech" rights of some company which does its damnedest to make sure that unintelligible crap mail clogs my account. To me spammers are like telemarketers you can't fuck with, and as such the vilest form of creatures. At least a telemarketer has to stand there and go through his spiel while you are alternately telling him or her that your head is made of stinky cheese and that you've filled your pants with a happy poo that smells like teen spirit.

    I'm sure that you have no dignity left to protect, but if there is one last little spark of soul left within your shriveled, barren minds, do yourselves and everyone else a favor, and find something constructive to do with your time, and urge all of the protoplasmic waste you call competitors to adopt a similar attitude.

    I can only imagine that when all of you are old and gray, and being overcome by some terminal illness brought about by karmic justice, that you don't want to be on your deathbed thinking on your lives and having your one contribution to our sick, sad world to be known as the McDonalds of penis enlargement emails, billions served. Stop... stop now, there is still time to become a productive member of society, to heal your tattered soul, and to once again ascend from the realm of advertising troglodytes to be human.

    Sincerely,
    Elbo Ruum

  44. It's the ISPs, Stupid...! by Christian_SEO · · Score: 1

    360's first mistake was spamming, if they have indeed done that. Their second mistake was trying to sue someone that provides a list of spammers. Spamhaus doesn't block spammers, ISPs block spammers. They should have tried to clean up their act with Spamhaus or went after the ISPs that are the ones that are really blocking them. I don't know about you, but if Spamhaus had gone away I would have put a lot of effort into trying to create a peer to peer type of blocklist. As it is now I am starting to change email addresses on 50+ sites because I am so damn sick of deleting this crap and reporting it to ISPs or SPAMCOP.net. I'm not wasting any more time on it now, I'm just going to work to get as free from it as I can by using email forwards that I can change when I need to and posting current email addresses on my sites that need it for business use.

    --
    NielsenTech.com Consultant-Directory.com
  45. Tell e360 how you feel about their loss by AUDIOMIND · · Score: 1