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.'"

70 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. "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 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.
    6. 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?
    7. 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
  2. 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 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
    6. 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.
    7. 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...
    8. 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.

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

      Which is why I always use example.com.

    10. 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).

    11. 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}

  3. 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.

  4. 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 :-(
  5. 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 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."

    3. 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

    4. 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!
  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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 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.
    6. 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.

  9. 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 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.
  10. 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 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
    2. 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.)

  11. 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 toriver · · Score: 2, Informative

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

  12. 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.

  13. 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...
  14. 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.

  15. "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

  16. 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.

  17. 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.
  18. 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.

  19. "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.

  20. 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?
  21. 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/

  22. You misspelled that... by ZxCv · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's spelled "N00B13".

    ;-)

    --

    Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
  23. 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.

  24. 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".

  25. 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
  26. 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