 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 | Re: I for one... Ed Zachery! | |
|
| | 
Jafo232
You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat.
Premium
join:2002-10-17
Boonville, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: I for one... 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
| Re: I for one... 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 | |
|
| | | 
popchaser
@208.49.x.x
| 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.... | |
|
| | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: I for one... 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 | |
|
| phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
·Comcast
| 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. | |
|
| | 
peter_m
Premium
join:2005-07-13
Canada, QC | Re: I for one... 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?? | |
|
| | | |
| | | phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
·Comcast
| 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. | |
|
| | | | 
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27 | Re: I for one... 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
| Re: I for one... 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
| 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 | |
|
| |
| |
Pvt_Canuck
@execulink.com
| Re: I for one... 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. | |
|
| | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: I for one... 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 | |
|
| 
djtim21
It's all good
Premium
join:2003-12-22
Buffalo Grove, IL
clubs:
| 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 | |
|
| 
nemo1966
join:2005-11-15
England | "British organization" ??? I would have thought it was a British organisation.  | |
|
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| I can't believe a judge bought it.... I can't believe a judge bought into this crap.
I can't believe a judge thought a US court had the right to tell a private company who they could or could not list in their own database, which is provided by an opt-in to it's customers
I can't believe a judge thought any ruling by a US court would have any effect on a UK company
I can't believe I've wasted a second of my life commenting on a spammer.
--
AMD X2 4800+ @2700Mhz/ MSI K8N Neo 4 Platinum SLI/ 4x 1024Mb Corsair XMS PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 7800GTs SLI/ Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
|
|
anonpisser
@optonline.net | Re: I can't believe a judge bought it.... What do you expect from Technology ignorant judges..?
Ingrates! | |
|
| soccerguy
join:2004-06-28
Seattle, WA
| -The judge didn't necessarily buy into it. The UK company didn't appear; by default in such cases, the plaintiff gets what he/she asks for.
-US courts will indeed dictate to private companies if the actions of that company tortiously interfere with the rights of others or are defematory and hurt the other's business.
-US courts will exert their jurisdiction over foreign companies conducing business in the United States. The big question is whether or not the UK company was conducting business here by letting US persons and companies use their spam list.
Do I think the spammer is correct? Of course not. But one ignores the courts at their own peril. | |
|
| | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Re: I can't believe a judge bought it.... said by soccerguy :-The judge didn't necessarily buy into it. The UK company didn't appear; by default in such cases, the plaintiff gets what he/she asks for. The UK Company.... enough said... Judge = Dolt
Even if the defendant does not show up, the plaintiff still has to prove the wrongdoing. You don't just get a default judgement without proving that the alleged defendant broke the law.
said by soccerguy :-US courts will exert their jurisdiction over foreign companies conducing business in the United States. The big question is whether or not the UK company was conducting business here by letting US persons and companies use their spam list. They are conducting business on the internet in the UK. They are not in the US. Just because it is available from here, does not mean that they are operating here.
said by soccerguy :Do I think the spammer is correct? Of course not. But one ignores the courts at their own peril. There is no peril to anyone or any company that is not legally bound to US law. They are abiding by UK law, where they are based from.
puritan | |
|
| | | soccerguy
join:2004-06-28
Seattle, WA
| Re: I can't believe a judge bought it.... "The UK Company....enough said...Judge = Dolt" WRONG. Poster = misinformed dolt. That's not how the court systems work, either here or in the UK.
Most judges don't read motions for default. Is it right? No. Should the plaintiff still have to prove their case? Yes. But in reality, if a defendant doesn't appear, the plaintiff is granted the relief they are asking for.
And you're legally wrong. The standard on whether a court can exert its jurisdiction is NOT where the company is located, but whether the defendant company is transacting business in the jurisdiction where the court is located. What is critical in that analysis is where the "customer" or client of the foreign company is, whether the foreign company marketed to that US customer or client, and what type of services (static web page or interactive web service) is being offered. Don't get suckered by the misinformed belief that just because a server is offshore, the US courts don't have jurisdiction. For example, if a company locates their server in Bermuda and deliberately or knowingly caters to California customers, they conduct business in California and US courts will exert their jurisdiction over them. A company can insulate themselves from US jurisdiction by refusing to do business with or by refusing to let US customers use their online products.
Read the body of case law that has developed on internet jurisdiction before posting. | |
|
| | | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Re: I can't believe a judge bought it.... said by soccerguy :Most judges don't read motions for default. Is it right? No. Should the plaintiff still have to prove their case? Yes. But in reality, if a defendant doesn't appear, the plaintiff is granted the relief they are asking for. It is the judges DUTY to make a plaintiff PROVE their case by a preponderence of the evidence before awarding a default judgement. If that is not happening, then the judge is not doing his/her job.
puritan | |
|
| | | | | soccerguy
join:2004-06-28
Seattle, WA
| Re: I can't believe a judge bought it.... You get no argument from me on that point. However, I've seen it too many times where the judge barely even looks at the motion before entering a default judgment.
What's sad is that I don't think Spamhaus did anything wrong and that the plaintiff's claims are without merit. What helps is that while many jurisdictions will register and enforce foreign judgments, they are generally not inclined to do so for default judgments where the merits have not been adjudicated.
I doubt Spamhaus will be hurt by this. | |
|
| | | | | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Re: I can't believe a judge bought it.... I had it happen to me. A kid broke into my car and took $4400 worth of stuff / damage. I took him to court, and he didn't show. But I didn't prove that he did anything. I had to come back with proof that he did something. He still didn't show, and the second judge awarded me the default without even looking at my proof. It is wrong, and a complete waste of taxpayer money IMHO.
puritan | |
|
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA
·Mediacom
1 edit | Default judgement "A lawsuit filed in an Illinois court by David Linhardt (aka e360 Insight LLC) against The Spamhaus Project Ltd., a British-based organisation over which the Illinois court had no jurisdiction, went predictably to default judgement when Spamhaus did not accept U.S. jurisdiction and defend it."
I'm so glad to see that other countries don't give a shit about our ridiculous court system.
"The court barred Spamhaus from causing any e-mail sent by e360insight or Linhardt to be "blocked, delayed, altered, or interrupted in anyway" Spamhaus also has to publish an apology for that states that Linhardt and his company are not spammers."
WOW | |
|
| soccerguy
join:2004-06-28
Seattle, WA | Re: Default judgement A defendant can make a limited appearance for purposes of filing a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction without submitting to the jurisidiction of the court where the case is being heard. | |
|
| 
Raptor
Not a Dumptruck
join:2001-10-21
London, ON | If i were Spamhaus PR dept, I'd schedule a big press conference (not that 360 deserves any attention at all), on the basis of an apology, but instead sum it up with a "Go $^%@ Yourself!"
--
....where's my fiber? | |
|
| | 
entropy1
Premium
join:2002-09-25 | Re: Default judgement Heh. That would be awesome. | |
|
| 
menumorut
BE an American.
join:2005-07-04
Queens Village, NY
| said by Anonymous :I'm so glad to see that other countries don't give a shit about our ridiculous court system. WOW I also agree!But if you think ours is bad you should take a peak at some EU ones, .....mind blowing!!!
--
Give the world changes at a pace it can absorb. | |
|
| 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by Anonymous :"A lawsuit filed in an Illinois court by David Linhardt (aka e360 Insight LLC) against The Spamhaus Project Ltd., a British-based organisation over which the Illinois court had no jurisdiction, went predictably to default judgement when Spamhaus did not accept U.S. jurisdiction and defend it." I'm so glad to see that other countries don't give a shit about our ridiculous court system. Of course, other countries care. The US enforces court orders by other countries and foreign courts enforce US court orders. It is a quid pro quo arrangement. However, in this case, there are no US assets from Spamhaus in the US to actually seize to satisfy a judgement. A lawsuit win doesn't mean anything if there are no assets to seize. That is another whole legal proceeding to actually seize assets. And don't be so sure that the UK wouldn't assist if the plaintiff (e360 Insight) went to a UK court to get a judgement against Spamhaus assets. Of course it is expensive to do that and e360 Insight might not find it worthwhile to do so.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
|
| |
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA | Re: Default judgement Hey I support international cooperation when it comes to criminals. Extraditions, arrests etc that's all good. But when it comes to these matters (and ridiculous punitive damages) I'm glad these don't have any effect outside the US. | |
|
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| however until a UK court says something to them they can tell the US court to "go F*ck yourself". and as spam is illegal in the UK the guy would probally loose. besides all spammers should be pushed in front of subway trains.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß | Judge = smart like fox By giving this moran some hope of a win via this default judgement, maybe he is trying to get the guy to go to the UK. Once in the UK, he could be arrested, I think. | |
|
| 
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| Re: Judge = smart like fox said by AnonProxy :By giving this moran some hope of a win via this default judgement, maybe he is trying to get the guy to go to the UK. Once in the UK, he could be arrested, I think. I like the way you think!
--
What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter | |
|
| |
| |
AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß | Re: Judge = smart like fox You need to think like a spammer...
If he was dumb enough to go to court knowing that any judgement wouldn't be valid...he might be dumb enough to fly to the UK to have his day in court. | |
|
phoneboy2
@shawcable.net | There ya go! There ya go, more proof the US system works........NOT! | |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Fry the judge... For wasting taxpayer money on an unenforceable case, and for confirming to the world that our system is completely STUPID. And fry this idiot spammer for being stupid enough to try to sue someone from another country in a US court.
The whole deal shows how dumb our government and legal system really is. Good job guys....
puritan | |
|
|
See 10 replies to this post |
|
newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD | Goodbye 360insight This sounds like a REAL good reason to drop e360insight & everything connected to it into your private blocklists . . . | |
|
lithicus0
join:2006-06-30
Chesapeake, VA | question Was it found that e360insight was not a spammer? The article is kind of bias, so it is hard to see what was concluded. I agree that this is frivolous conclusion, but the results should be posted. | |
|
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL | The judge was oblivious I think the court house email box should be clogged with this spammers crap and see how much the judge changes his tune. The end result of this just shows how oblivious some judges are.
As for the spammer, let him go rot somewhere. | |
|
Mark
Premium
join:2001-11-15
Mesa, AZ | hmmm I wasn't aware it was against the law to maintain a private list of people not to trust. Spamhaus isn't forcing anyone to use their list, so where are the grounds for this lawsuit? | |
|
| 
T1 Rocky
join:2002-11-15
Dallas, TX | Is this real? The article is from "The Inquirer." This sounds too silly to believe. Could this be an internet hoax? | |
|
| | keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
 ·Teliax VOIP
·WestPAnet Inc.
·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| Re: Is this real? Well, SpamHaus did reply to the suit. There is documentation on the suit, so I think it is valid.
As far as what really happened I do not think that is clear. I do not have the court room transcripts but I am sure many would like to see them.
Just to add my 2 cents...
This is not the first time that SpamHaus has been sued. There have been many tries at doing so. The problems that came to light is that SpamHaus is not selling anything. They are not doing business anywhere, they are simply keeping a list that others can choose to use.
UK has an "upfront cash policy". Basically if you think you can win you put upfront the legal costs. In the UK, spam being illegal, the case would fail right there. Plus, the simple fact listed above, they are not doing anything to block email, that would be the next killer.
SpamHaus also has a lot of support. If any major problem arise (where SpamHaus was in trouble) I think there would be a huge amount of people (with money) to support SpamHaus. Right now everyone knows, just like in the past when this happens, that SpamHaus has nothing to worry about and seems a little annoyed by our (the US) legal system.
I agree that many should actually sue the spammer mentioned. AOL has a tendency to do things like that, yahoo, many others, so the spammer is really sitting in a far worse place than SpamHaus. Spammers tend to be looked at as skammers, so collecting on a judgement from them would be difficult but it would not be impossible to really cripple the spammers business. | |
|
| 
Nanoprobe
Crunching in subspace
Premium
join:2003-05-11
Crab Nebula
clubs: | Re: hmmm This is just another prime example of the "black plague" that is ruining our judicial system and taking away our freedoms. Where do they get these morons?
--
Resistance is Futile | |
|
TheyShouldBuyaCLUE
@megapath.net |  Another fine example of "justice" in America
SOS, DD.
The criminals are running the asylum. | |
|
| LemmyCaution
join:2002-06-08
Playa Del Rey, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Another fine example of "justice" in America Forgive me for referencing politics but, is it any wonder that the government doesn't want to try terrorists in our courts?
As security manager for a 30 person firm, I spend far too much time dealing with spam.
90% of the mail that gets to our gateway is blocked as spam. Do I care if some sales email gets blocked? Does my client?
No. | |
|
MrHappy316
Wish I had my tank
Premium
join:2003-01-02
Summerville, SC
·AT&T DSL Service
| Barred from entering US? I'm not a lawyer or play one on TV but if a person who has a judgement against them enters the US and doesn't pay said judgement wouldn't they be held in contempt of court and placed in jail for a period of time. Then their passport could be revoked until judgement is paid. Basically what I'm asking is does this judgement now bar the owners of Spamhaus from entering the United States. Just curious.
--
Check out my web page | |
|
madylarian
The curmudgeonly
Premium
join:2002-01-03
Parkville, MD
| David Linhardt whines There's a great discussion on NANAE, complete with David Linhardt whining about comments posted to his website. One only hopes that he had to pay through the nose for the lawyer.
mady
--
Honi soit qui mal y pense | |
|
stevelinford
join:2006-09-18
55545
| Spamhaus Internet terrorists. Becoming what you oppose
Editorial by Dave Hayes
Many folks have asked me why I stopped "contributing" to the everlasting debates in NANA (news.admin.net-abuse.*). I generally respond with something along the lines of "I don't wish to become that which I oppose". Indeed, recently I've "plonked" several entities (among them the terrorists known as "spamhaus" and "spews") simply because I no longer wish to beat my head against the stone wall of ignorance.
Terrorists? Yes that's right. One definition of "terrorism" is "attacking innocents in the name of your cause". Nowhere is this more ironic and extreme than in the deeds of my old nemesi, the anti-spammer zealotry collective, some of whom are now known as spamhaus and spews. The terrorism they practice is implemented in the form of "mail blacklists".
Blacklists are not a new notion. In the 1950's, the infamous McCarthy blacklists contained names of "possible communists", which ultimately led us to a more sterile culture.
The social costs of what came to be called McCarthyism have yet to be computed. By conferring its prestige on the red hunt, the state did more than bring misery to the lives of hundreds of thousands of Communists, former Communists, fellow travelers, and unlucky liberals. It weakened American culture and it weakened itself. ---Victor Navasky, Naming Names (New York: Viking Press, 1980)
Modern internet technology has created our own version(s) of social blacklists. Many anti-spam zealots have turned to this method for freeing their mailboxes from spam. Simply expressed, these organizations maintain databases which are supposed to contain the IP addresses of known spammers. They then provide these databases to various electronic mail servers, so that the servers can reject email based on what's in these databases.
The bottom line is, if the machine that sends your email is on this list, a number of mail servers will automatically reject all email from your server.
If (and only if) they restricted these blacklists to actual spammers, I doubt very seriously that I would have problem with this practice. If we could trust human beings to maintain a logical and calm viewpoint about life, I doubt that I would have a problem with these blacklists. Unfortunately we cannot trust these things in either case.
Fact: Spamhaus and spews have added innocent IP blocks to their blacklists.
The anti-spammer idealotry goes like this: "Anyone who gets service from a network friendly to spammers is supporting the spammers and therefore our enemy." (The friend of my enemy is my enemy too?)
So here's how this goes. Once a network provider is branded "a communist"...er excuse me..."a spammer", ALL of their IP ranges are blocked. Typically a network provider is providing services for smaller service providers, many of whom would never and have never engaged in spamming of any kind. No notice is really given on these blacklisting events, rather you find out when mail starts bouncing to some destination. Usually an end customer is the first to notice, and that customers is directed by the bounce to complain to...their own ISP!
In essence, the customer is tricked into presenting the terrorist anti-spam agenda to the ISP. The ISP turns around and finds out that their provider (or provider's provider) is what the anti-spam zealots want "silenced". Until that target complies with their arbitrary agenda (usually of the form "stop spamming", but this is not always true...see below), everyone else has to suffer with electronic mail blocks.
What's wrong with this? Everything.
* First and foremost, the most often heard reason anti-spammers are so rabid about anti-spam is "it makes electronic mail unusable for average people". If this is true, then how does blocking innocent email help this situation? In fact, blacklisting innocents contributes to the problem. The hypocrisy here is so thick I doubt even a knife can cut it. * The dishonor of the practice of blacklists is amazing. Many naive internet mail administrators add blacklists like spamhaus "because they work to reduce spam". Lots of these sites have no idea that they are being cut off from legitimate email because of these machinations. If their customers really knew that they were cutoff, I wonder how many would still buy service? Getting rid of spam is one thing, blocking that key business email that means $100K in sales is quite another. Lets take this one step further. Person A buys email service from ISP X who is using Spamhaus to block spam email. Person A's daughter, who's income is very low due to being a student in college, buys email service from ISP Y (because it's cheap) who uses IAP S as their connectivity. ISP Y buys network from IAP S because it's cheap. Due to real life constraints, the only contact Person A has with their daughter is email. IAP S suddenly gets put on the anti-spam master blacklist. The same day, Person A's daughter has a car accident. A roommate desperately tries to send email to Person A but it's blocked. Worse, it's blocked because these zealots have an idealogical cause which is set up to be more important than a person's life. This is the height of dishonor. * The practice is quite criminal by many definitions and with criminals on all sides: o Any ISP that is blocked is told to "comply with our demands or be blacklisted" (a.k.a. extortion). o Attacking innocents in the name of their cause (a.k.a. terrorism). o Since the control of the blacklist is out of the hands of the service provider who subscribes to it, by law you must clearly state "random people may be blocked to your email box by other people who are not under our control" before selling "email services". I've never seen this stated on any ISP ad. (a.k.a false advertising) o Blacklisting ISPs is a good way of knocking them out of business (a.k.a restraint of trade) o If spam ever goes away, these organizations will also. Thus they have a vested interest in keeping spam alive (a.k.a playing both sides of the street)
Do note that the anti-spammers claim these practices are not criminal and will "reduce economic support for the 'spam friendly' ISPs". This claim is quite erroneous:
Fact: Spammer companies have far more money than most innocents.
Yep, to the tune of millions of dollars per month. SPAM is big business. Do you think that the income of one little ISP with 1000 customers is going to make any difference against the large income of a spam company? No! All that does is clear more bandwidth for the spammers to use, should the little ISP cave in and switch to another provider.
While there's no proof (that I'm aware of), it's not so far fetched to open up questions of collusion between "the providers that are anti-spam" and the "anti-spam blacklists". Certain providers, to compete, may pay the blacklist groups lots of money to keep attacking innocents, which gets them more customers in the long run as ISPs fold because they cant afford the connectivity provided by the "anti-spam supporter" providers.
I've established some things here:
1. In my opinion, blacklists are bad. 2. The anti-spammers are resorting to clearly criminal activities to further their goals: extortion, restraint-of-trade, terrorism. 3. The effect the anti-spammers are trying to have by blocking innocents only works to destroy email connectivity, the cure is worse than the disease.
This brings me to my concluding point. The original complaint against spammers included accusations of being criminal. Most spammers are considered criminal. Yet look at the anti-spammers! In their undying eternal zeal to end spam, they have become just what they oppose! Criminals and email destroyers. Gee, isn't this what they call the spammers?
The aware person realizes that fighting something only makes it stronger. Indeed, when you see two people rabidly on one side or the other, it's very hard to distinguish the two. They almost appear to be the same person, willing to commit any atrocity for the sake of their ideology or economics. What more do I need to know?
So, in a roundabout way, that's why I don't participate. I've done my days of tilting at windmills. I've presented my pearls, but the swine didn't hear any of them. They've misrepresented my position countless times for their own agendas, failed to understand even the most basic of the concepts I've explained, and twisted what I've said to make me out to be something I am not. ("Spam supporter"...lol)
I have finally realized that it has less to do with the ability to understand, it's mostly that they are not willing to understand. So in that climate I should once again venture forth into that primal never-ending argumentia that is NANA?
No. I'm sorry. I have far better things to do. | |
|
|
|
|
Spamhaus Must Pay Spammer $11 Million
