desreversti
join:2002-09-03
San Antonio, TX | I for one...
I for one am glad that Spamhaus is based in the UK as opposed to the US.  |
|
Plldwnyrpnts
join:2003-04-19
Chicago, IL | Ed Zachery! |
|
phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to desreversti
In this case... I can't agree more. I am trying to find more details on what grounds the spammer sued... or if the court/judge was 'required' to rule in the spammer's favor SOLELY because SpamHaus didn't show up. Something tells me this spammer doesn't have a leg to stand on. |
|
Raptor
Not a Dumptruck
join:2001-10-21
London, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
 ·Bell Sympatico
| reply to desreversti
Agreed.
What's the judge thinking anyway? The spam is in violation of UK law, so Spamhaus blocks incoming spam. Enough said. This must be the running joke at the Spamhaus office. I'm laughing, what a waste of court time.
Would not the new real problem be that this case now sets a precedent for any future cases that could potentially involve US based anti-spam companies (oxymoron?) 
--
....where's my fiber? |
|
Pvt_Canuck
@execulink.com
| As this is a civil suit, and Spamhaus is in the UK, the finding was probably summary. Did Spamhaus even bother to send a representative to the proceedings, because in a civil suit, if one party doesn't bother to show, the other one wins just for being there. The judge doesn't have any choice in the matter, it's procedure. |
|
djtim21
It's all good
Premium
join:2003-12-22
Buffalo Grove, IL
clubs:
| reply to desreversti
What Spamhaus should do now is file a case in the UK suing them for $12 million, and after they trade cash, Spamhaus will end up winning.
Either way this is funny.
--
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” - Edmund Burke |
|
peter_m
Premium
join:2005-07-13
Canada, QC | reply to phantom6294
I don't understand. Isn't spam illegal in the US as well?!?! How can a spammer sue a company that prevents the spammer from conducting an illegal activity?? |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to Pvt_Canuck
It is my understanding that Spamhaus hired counsel to represent their interests, but counsel acted in an incompetent manner, and was discharged for their incompetence. I believe the routine response to a suit filed in a court which has no jurisdiction is to file a motion to dismiss on grounds of jurisdiction; which counsel for defense did not do. Rather, they tried to respond to the claims of the plaintiff; an unnecessary action in this matter.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
| reply to peter_m
said by peter_m  :I don't understand. Isn't spam illegal in the US as well?!?!
Unfortunately not . . . they don't call it the (You) Can-Spam Act for nothing.
--
Ö¿Ö
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's Newest Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket? |
|
phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
·Comcast
| reply to peter_m
Illegal? Depends on how you read the CAN-SPAM Act. In many ways, CAN-SPAM set guidelines on what companies must to do/not do when sending emails... in short, they regulated spam and thus by extension, 'legalized' it. So long as you comply with CAN-SPAM, you can send 'spam' all day long.
If you read enough stories here on BBR, you will find we have some seriously ignorant politicians trying to write laws that related to technology... and they seem to fail most of the time. The CAN-SPAM is just one example of the complete failure of technology related legislation. |
|
Jafo232
You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat.
Premium
join:2002-10-17
Boonville, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Plldwnyrpnts
Good, I hope this happens more to Spamhaus. These guys label spam with no care of who it hurts.
I had a site once that sent no mass mailing at all. It had a forum where people could register and then it validated their registration via email, similar to what this forum here does.
Someone(s) reported the VALIDATION as SPAM multiple times and got the server blacklisted. For a couple of weeks half of my outgoing mail ended up in peoples spam boxes or was blocked at the door. The email server became useless to me.
Try to get delisted from that bohemoth is next to impossible, you basically just have to wait it out.
I am glad someone is holding them responsible.
--
Write Your News, Find Your News At PingPost.com |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Jafo232 :Good, I hope this happens more to Spamhaus. These guys label spam with no care of who it hurts. The judgement against Spamhaus was a futile gesture. The award can't be enforced against Spamhaus without taking enforcement to a court in the UK. The spammer won't do that because the spammer will lose in the UK court.
For Spamhaus it will just be business as usual. For me that is a good thing because the Spamhaus SBL-XBL is the most effective means of keeping spam out of my server that I have found. If I couldn't use a list like Spamhaus provides, I'd have to stop using email.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27 | reply to phantom6294
Wait, is an ACT really a law?
I support our British cousins fighting the good fight (through all that fog and bangers!).
A pint for ye! |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| When it is the name of a bill presented to the U.S. President for signature, and when the U.S. President signs the bill, thus enacting the legislation, then: Yes.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to phantom6294
said by phantom6294 :In this case... I can't agree more. I am trying to find more details on what grounds the spammer sued... or if the court/judge was 'required' to rule in the spammer's favor SOLELY because SpamHaus didn't show up. Something tells me this spammer doesn't have a leg to stand on. »news.com.com/Spam+fighter+hit+wi···009.html
quote:
Spamhaus didn't mount a defense in the case; the ruling was a default judgment in absence of counterarguments.
--
Am Heimcomputer sitz' ich hier, und programmier' die Zukunft mir |
|
popchaser
@208.49.x.x
| reply to Jafo232
I support your point here. I've been IT Manager for several companies over the years and these blacklists are getting out of hand. In their self-righteous way to fight spam, they do not care who gets hurt. Their process for removing from blacklist is so difficult and frustrating, and it should not be the case. I hope someone come up with better approach instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water...
Frustrated IT guy.... |
|
nemo1966
join:2005-11-15
England | reply to desreversti
"British organization" ??? I would have thought it was a British organisation.  |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to popchaser
said by popchaser :
I hope someone come up with better approach instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water...
When you scrape through the murky water that is your Inbox full of spam day in and day out without finding a baby, well; I run a mail server, and I will block incoming. Either borrowing a list published by somebody else, or using my own homegrown list.
At least with a published list you have some hope for removal. You mostly don't have any hope when the list is privately operated, and not even announced.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
