Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spammer That Sued Spamhaus Now Sued for Spamming

Posted by Zonk on from the i'll-have-the-spam-eggs-bacon-spam-and-spam-please dept.

Dave Q. Lintard writes with a link to The Register's coverage of a suit against the spammer that sued Spamhaus. e360 Insight, as the company is known, is accused of using a botnet and compromised headers to get their 'advertising' into the mailboxes of the claimant. These are also the folks that tried to get the Illinois courts to suspend SpamHaus's domain registration when they wouldn't play by e 360's rules. 'e360 Insight sued Spamhaus after the anti-spam organisation blacklisted its domains over alleged spamming. In a default ruling made by an Illinois court in September 2006, Spamhaus was ordered to pay $11.7m in compensation to e360 Insight, pull the organisation's listing, and post a notice stating that it was wrong to say e360 Insight was involved in sending junk mail. UK-based Spamhaus did not defend the case and the ruling was made in its absence.'

6 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. Factual inaccuracy by Looce · · Score: 5, Informative

    Default judgments obtained in U.S. County, State or Federal courts have no validity in the United Kingdom and can not be enforced under the British legal system. A Plaintiff seeking to have such an order enforced must re-file the case in a British court of law and prove jurisdiction, as well as the small matter of proving the merits of the case, all of which were in this case bogus and would not have stood up in any court if tested. Spamhaus had advised Mr Linhardt from the start that a U.S. judgement would be invalid outside of the United States and that he would need to re-file his case in the United Kingdom. Spamhaus understands that David Linhardt does not wish to file in the United Kingdom because his activities are illegal here. With source, of course. Emphasis mine. The entire document linked here is worth reading.

    TFsummary failed to mention this.
  2. Re:The Ultimate .Forward by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That might well be the law. It might be relevant to this case too, if Illinois courts had jurisdiction over the UK.

    --
    Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
  3. Re:The Ultimate .Forward by asninn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It was a *default ruling* - Spamhaus didn't have anyone show up for the trial, so they lost by default, and I'm pretty sure the judge didn't have much choice in that regard.

    I can certainly *understand* Spamhaus, of course; if somebody sued me in another country, I wouldn't fly there just to attend a trial, either, and I'd certainly ignore the verdict (why do they think they'd have jurisdiction over me, anyway?), but the rules are still the rules, and the judge just did what the rules said, so don't blame him.

    --
    butter the donkey
  4. Re:The Ultimate .Forward by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 5, Funny

    And the day that Illinois courts have jurisdiction in the UK we'll start throwing tea (or should that be Starbucks coffee) into the harbour.

    --
    init 11 - for when you need that edge.
  5. Re:P.S. This is old news by AndroidCat · · Score: 5, Funny

    Please post your email address, and we will opt you out of further news on this topic.

    Super remove close reason reveal identity known event complaint legal goes. edited AM. delivered Troika system. copy Sandhills Company rights reserved. tool crack mode. If happening anything unable candidate number tested per second branch bytes Software.
    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  6. Re:Insanely arrogant USA judges by EveLibertine · · Score: 5, Informative

    They didn't, at least not in this case. Spamhaus requested that the case be handled by this court. They chould have let it go to any court, then argued that whichever court it was had no jurisdiction, or let the court decide whenever it was handed the case that it didn't have jurisdiction. But that's not what happened. By requesting a specific court, it appeared that Spamhaus was going to actually fight the merits of the case, which would have waved jurisdiction arguements. So, to any court handling the case at this point, it would appear that Spamhaus was going to accept U.S. jurisdiction. But Spamhaus was just moving it to a court that they knew didn't have jurisdiction so that they wouldn't even have to show. I don't know why they didn't just let it go to any court, state or federal, and then claim grounds of no jurisdiction. Maybe their lawyers thought they might run into trouble in U.S. federal courts or something, and thought they had better chances of going this route. Nevertheless, the decision was Spamhaus', not any judge with a "god" complex.