A Day Without Spamhaus...Won't be a pleasant one, warns company ( old news - 01:55PM Tuesday Oct 10 2006) tags: legal · spamAs we mentioned yesterday, an Illinois court is considering a e360insight request to have ICANN yank Spamhaus's domain records. This came after Spamhaus, a UK outfit, laughed at a bizarre U.S. court ruling demanding they pay in excess of $11 million for blacklisting the known spammer. Spamhaus has responded to the proposed order on their website, and warns that impeding the functionality of the Spamhaus Block list, which helps filter some 50 billion spam e-mails per day, would obviously result in an explosion in spam on the Internet. Steve Linford also reacts to community discussion of the company's recourse should their domain be yanked (such as running from another domain or a single IP address, something he dubs "absurd"). "The reality is that if Spamhaus gets around the court order by switching domain to maintain the blocking, the judge would very likely then rule us in criminal contempt," he says. "We don't want a criminal record for the sake of fighting spam. We normally help fit the spammers with criminal records, not the other way round."Meanwhile Bart Loethen, a lawyer for e360 who somehow helped convince the court his client isn't a spammer, tells the AP he has to go after Spamhaus' domain until it removes the company from the blacklist. "They are thumbing their nose at an order of the court," says the lawyer. "What else can we do?"We'll wager our readers have at least one suggestion.
Related:- $11 Million Spamhaus Penalty Tossed
- Alan Ralsky Indicted
- Spam King Faces 26 Years In Jail
- You Have a Constitutional Right to Send Spam
- Monday Morning Links
- AT&T Slammed For Text Message Spam
- Your Constitutional Right To Spam
- FTC Shuts Down 'Rogue' ISP
|
 
GeneStarwind
join:2001-12-13
Fairfax, VA
3 edits | Expected "I'm going to kill your wife, but boy will your ass be in trouble when I file suit against you for calling police on me who caused me to break my ankle because I attempted to flee the scene!" I consider this about equally moronic. Too bad the law and economics are rarely in favor of those in the right (in the truest sense of the word). | |
|  | 
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL
1 edit | Re: Expected Solicited Bulk Email is an important mechanism for keeping consenting customers informed of products or service news. When Bulk Email is Solicited it is valuable to the recipient and therefore also to the sender. When it's Unsolicited it's purely Spam, an unwanted nuisance to the recipient, and, because it forces the recipient to assume the cost of receiving, storing and dealing with the unwanted advert it is also a theft of the unwilling recipient's time and resources.
The difference between senders of legitimate bulk email and spammers couldn't be clearer, the legitimate bulk email sender has verifiable permission from the recipients before sending, the spammer does not.They help people create "mailing lists" also called SPAM! They are my customers, help me creat a list. Voila! Now I can spam all day long. LOL! | |
| | | 
Jafo232
You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat.
Premium
join:2002-10-17
Boonville, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Expected The problem here is, there is no way to get "verifiable permission" from recipients. Even if their was, Spamhaus doesn't want to hear about it, they just block you.
I for one am happy they are getting a hard time. I cannot tell you how many times they have given my server a hard time and we send no bulk mailing whatsoever. We got on their list because a user reported a forum registration validation email as SPAM. Since they had received complaints from the owners of the netblock (i.e. the company that hosts my dedicated server) my IP was immediately blacklisted. What a nightmare that was.
So now they are crying that someone wants to basically do the same thing to them. Well, you will get no sympathy from this guy. Perhaps in the future they will consider their heavy handed tactics a second time.
Other RBL services will take you seriously when you submit to be removed. Sorbs for example blacklisted my server and many using my host due to TTL's (they never actually received any spam) and after a week or two of discussion with the provider, was able to remove us.
Spamhaus on the other hand just basically says "Sorry, our model says your a spammer, therefore you are a spammer".
Well, now the Gov't says your guilty, so your guilty. Sucks don't it? They even got off lightly, because with the Government you get a chance to appeal.
--
'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached' | |
| | | | 
sweintz
Premium
join:2002-03-01
Hamden, CT
| Re: Expected said by Jafo232  :The problem here is, there is no way to get "verifiable permission" from recipients. Even if their was, Spamhaus doesn't want to hear about it, they just block you. BULLS!T. You certainly CAN get verified permission. You send one, and only one email when the register. If they don't respond (either by using an enclosed link, or replying via email) telling you it is OK to add them to your list, you don't add them. Simple as that.
I for one am happy they are getting a hard time. I cannot tell you how many times they have given my server a hard time and we send no bulk mailing whatsoever. We got on their list because a user reported a forum registration validation email as SPAM.
Was it a true validation request? In other words, if they ignore the email, they do not get further mails from you? Or is it a "forge in" type validation: ie: if they take no action, the signup is assumed to be valid.
I suspect it was the latter. In which case YOU ARE A SPAMMER.
Since they had received complaints from the owners of the netblock (i.e. the company that hosts my dedicated server) my IP was immediately blacklisted. What a nightmare that was. OK, so the HOSTING COMPANY THEMSELVES complained to Spamahus about you? LOL. You musyt be clueless indeed. Please tell me your address ranges so that I can permanantly solder them into my routers ACL deny list. | |
| | deleteme
join:2002-04-22
Chicago, IL
 ·Vonage
·Comcast
| This whole thing shows what’s wrong with the legal system – you can sue anybody for anything without any basis whatsoever.
The fact remains, before any of this legal BS, is that you, me, an ISP, a company, this server, that server, whatever, can all elect of their own free will, to use spamhaus or not to use spamhaus. There are plenty of other anti-spam methods, who will apparently allow e360, if you don’t agree with spamhaus’s decision to block. If you think e360 sends spam, and you don’t want that kind of spam delivered to users on your network, that you control or own, then you have a right to voluntarily include spamhaus’s blacklist.
Any admin could just have easily made a rule on their mail server, without a 3rd party blacklist to block e360 messages, and they would be none the wiser – what are they going to do, go after everyone who operates a mail server? I’m paying for the server and bandwidth – not e360 – so yeah, I’ll decide what mail gets delivered or not. | |
| stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
 ·Verizon BroadbandA..
| Spamhaus's Solicitor Should be Canned I think the lawyer who told Spamhaus to ignore the Illinois order should be shot. There are too many pathes open to enforce the order.
If, however, you take the position that the Illinois order isn't worth the paper it is printed on, then who cares if Spamhaus is found in contempt. What are they going to, order the UK government to extradite its business license?
If Spamhaus believes the U.S. Court is without jurisdiction, then it should bring an action in the UK against e360 and get an order that the US order is invalid and then start serving that order all around the place as well. If e360 has a court order and Spamhaus has nothing, it will lose the fight. | |
| | 
rrz103
RichardZ
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Canton, MI
| Re: Spamhaus's Solicitor Should be Canned I agree. Although litigation can be expensive, Spamhaus should have at least attempted to get the case dismissed based on jurisdictional or other summary judgment grounds. I'm sure they could have garnered enough support to fund the litigation and/or get volunteers (EFF comes to mind).
On top of that, Spamhaus' inaction inadvertently created a unique method of enforcing judgments in the United States against an international business who use an ICANN based domain name. There's another reason to free ICANN from U.S. control (which I don't necessarily agree with).
--
Rich Z - »www.richardz.com | |
| | | 
Albert2
@newellco.com | Re: Spamhaus's Solicitor Should be Canned I agree. The way they mishandled this case makes no sense. I say kudos to e360 and their lawyers, Synergy Law Group, for playing by the (legal) rules and winning. | |
| |
AnonymousPerson
@optonline.net
| That is an Illinois order, not a US order. A US court order would be from the United States federal government, which is a separate entity from the Illinois State government. The thing is, that the state of Illinois does not have the proper authority to order ICANN to yank spamhaus' records, as ICANN is employed by the federal government, and thus any attempt to coercise it to yank spamhau's is a violation of the sovereignty of the federal government, which the several states (Illinois being one of them) created in unison. The only way that Illinois State could force this upon the federal government is if 3/4 of the States agree with them and thus modify the Constitution to specifically allow this interference in the separation of powers.
To be quite honest, any United Kingdom order is invalid as the Kingdom lacks the proper authority to force anything upon the United States federal government, even more so than Illinois State. There is no need to worry though because Illinois' court order is only effective in Illinois and is not backed by the United States federal government or any of the other States. The only thing that Illinois State can do would be to issue subponeas for spamhaus officials and then and only then would they be able to affect spamhaus throughout the United States as a whole (as the other states must extradite those who have committed crimes in any state and if the executives refuse to come, then they have committed a crime, upon which the other states must extradite them).
To anyone that is from England, I would like to say that the United States of America or any of the several States in the Union except Illinois State, do not support this and it is only Illinois State that supports this; and even then, it is only one judge in the Illinois State judiciary that supports this and chances are that if spamhaus was to write a letter to the Governor of Illinois asking for an executive pardon to resolve this, they would get it in an instant. | |
| | |
rrz103
RichardZ
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Canton, MI
2 edits | Re: Spamhaus's Solicitor Should be Canned I'm sorry but you're wrong on more than a few points:
First of all, this matter is in FEDERAL COURT in Illinois. Specifically, the United States District Court Northern Illinois Eastern Division. This is NOT a state court. In fact, here's a link to the Federal judge overseeing this case [http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/JUDGE/KOCORAS/cpkpage.htm]. To understand how I came to the conclusion that this is under the jurisdiction of a Federal Court, view this motion submitted by E360 and look at the caption (top of the very first page).
Second, even if this was a state court, other states would most likely recognize the order. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution compels this in most instances.
Third, ICANN may be "employed" by the U.S. Federal government but that does not mean that it won't acknowledge a court order. It can and it will (*). If the Feds don't like it, they can intervene but haven't. ICANN is a non-profit corporation based in California that has been contracted by the Feds to manage top-level domains and the like.
Fourth, a court order from an English court isn't invalid but rather unenforceable in the U.S. in most instances (criminal extradition is possible based on factors and is not relevant here).
Finally, your last statement about none of the states or Federal government support this decision is quite frankly baseless. I haven't seen one official statement by any state or federal government on the matter.
--
Rich Z - »www.richardz.com | |
| | | | stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
·Verizon BroadbandA..
| Re: Spamhaus's Solicitor Should be Canned First, I never suggested tat I thought that Spamhaus should ignore the US order. I said to the contrary. A UK order, however, would put them in a better position.
First, the order would have equal weight o a US order (in theory) outside the US. If you start serving the order around the world, a number of companies would simply say that they were not getting involved.
Second, it would demonstrate good faith and possible help with the contempt issue.
Third, it would help on the floor of the U.N. | |
| | | |
AnonymousPerson
@optonline.net
| I did dnot realize that it was a district court that made the order. I had thought that it was an Illinois court, as people kept saying Illinois.
Anyway, the full faith and credit clause does not extend to everything, as if one state was to institute slavery, the others would not have to recognize it, as was true prior to the War of Southern Secession. | |
| | | | |
rrz103
RichardZ
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Canton, MI | Re: Spamhaus's Solicitor Should be Canned Besides the fact that we're not talking about slavery here, I did qualify my statement about the FF&C Clause by saying "in most instances."
--
Rich Z - »www.richardz.com | |
| | | | | |
AnonymousPerson
@optonline.net
| Re: Spamhaus's Solicitor Should be Canned It was just an example to illustrate that based on a precedent.
Anyway, since this is a federal court that is handling the case, this entire conversion is more hypothetical any it is anything else; I just wish that I knew that it was in a federal court before I posted the first message. From how things on broadbandreports.com read, it appeared to be a state court. | |
| 
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
 ·AT&T DSL Service
·Comcast
·Vonage
·Speakeasy
|  So it's still OK if I blacklist them right? Pphh...
But on the flip side, Spamhaus is a service that that those who control the e-mail servers, choose to use. I don't use them, but if I wanted to, that's my business. While I don't have all the details of this court hearing, I still am at a loss of how a case like this can go from start to finish with such a result? I bet Microsoft isn't a big of Firefox or Opera, but I don't see them suing these companies because they both claim to have a better web experience?
So who's next? Spybot Search & Destroy removes a lot of spyware and adware from companies that claim to be innocent. | |
| | 
Raptor
Not a Dumptruck
join:2001-10-21
London, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·Bell Sympatico
| Re: So it's still OK if I blacklist them right? Pphh... said by knightmb :I still am at a loss of how a case like this can go from start to finish with such a result? 360 filed suit against Spamhaus, they laughed, and didn't show up to the court hearing in the US, so default judgement went to 360. Apparently, they're chalking it up as a decisive win.
I say whatever, give them default judgement as that is how the system works, but as for any sort of actual payout, damages or actions, the judge should have some common sense and overrule and say GTFO to e360. Or does the winning side get the exact penalties it was suing for?
--
....where's my fiber? | |
| | |
AnonymousPerson
@optonline.net | Re: So it's still OK if I blacklist them right? Pphh... No, the judgement does not go by default to the person that appears in court. Rather, he has to argue his case effectively enough to convince the judge that he is correct and then the judgement goes to him. Apparently e360insight did just that. | |
| | | | davisx
join:2005-01-06
| Re: So it's still OK if I blacklist them right? Pphh... "Re: So it's still OK if I blacklist them right? Pphh...
No, the judgement does not go by default to the person that appears in court. Rather, he has to argue his case effectively enough to convince the judge that he is correct and then the judgement goes to him. Apparently e360insight did just that."
So basically the judge is f*cking idiot?
In a way i do hope that the Illinois government oversteps its bounds and ICANN somehow punishes spamhaus. It would be the end of US control of ICANN. | |
| | | | |
AnonymousPerson
@optonline.net | Re: So it's still OK if I blacklist them right? Pphh... How? Will the world go to war with the US for exercising its authority over its own companies? Really, such a notion is absurd. | |
| | | |
sweintz
Premium
join:2002-03-01
Hamden, CT
| said by AnonymousPerson :
No, the judgement does not go by default to the person that appears in court. Rather, he has to argue his case effectively enough to convince the judge that he is correct and then the judgement goes to him. Apparently e360insight did just that.
Well, when there is no opposing argument...
BTW, e360 seems to have committed perjury when they stated in their affidavit to the court that Spamhaus does business in Illinois.
e360 are some seriously bad spammers. They will be getting theirs shortly... or so I have heard... | |
| 
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ | It just might be time... For some heavy hitters, like M$ and others who use Spamhaus, to file briefs on behalf of them to get the order vacated.
Also, a public letter writing campaign migh be useful. | |
| |
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL | Re: It just might be time... If the defendant doesn't show up, it is a default judgement no matter how many friend of the court briefs are written. | |
| | | sqinky
Premium
join:2001-01-24
Fernley, NV
| Re: It just might be time... It's just like the above post... If I sue someone and they don't show up to the hearing, EVERY trial court in the USA will enter some sort of default judgment in favor of the party that showed up to the hearing. I don't know if the trial court enters a finding of facts or simply enters a default judgment based on the FTA. This would be important in a appeal since the trial court, not an appeals court, is responsible to find the facts. I'm guessing that there is nothing wrong with the outcome of the trial procedurally, so they can't expect to win an appeal of the finding of liability, but I'd be appealing both the liability finding and the damage award amount. | |
| | | |
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL | Re: It just might be time... I believe all appeal rights go out the window since you didn't bother to show-up in the first place. | |
| | | | |
rrz103
RichardZ
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Canton, MI
| Re: It just might be time... Right, and the only way to open the case back up is to show that proof of service wasn't made or some other egregious error or mistake was made (all within the confines of a court's rules and/or state statute). Once a valid argument is made and accepted by the court, the default judgment can be vacated and a new hearing date set.
I don't know how Spamhaus can get around this one however, especially since they have been actively following the case and knew it was going on.
It's a hard argument to make saying, "your honor, we had no idea that such a clever enforcement mechanism would take place, and therefore, would like to vacate the judgement."
Too much, too late, and that's disappointing since I think Spamhaus has got a good operation going on. Of course, this isn't the end of the world for them (or for its users), just that there's going to be a period of insanity where IT staff will be trying to make the switch to the new IP address.
--
Rich Z - »www.richardz.com | |
| |
AnonymousPerson
@optonline.net
| This is not like in England. Illinois State is a sovereign entity just like the United Kingdom and thus, it is not subservient to the United States federal government. If anything, the United States federal government is subservient to it. Therefore, Illinois State does not care what happens to Microsoft as Microsoft is in Washington State, and thus any protest by Microsoft would be useless.
To further illustrate that Illinois State is a sovereign entity, I would like to state that Illinois, Washington, California, New York, etcetera are all seperate countries, just like England, France, etcetera. The United States of America is a union created by the States, like the European Union is a union created by the Nation-States of Europe. The similarities end there, as the United States of America is a strong union, such that it takes sole responsibility for foreign and intrastate affairs; to an alien, the United States of America eclipses the several States entirely such that it is the only entity of which they know. However, in Europe, the European Union is a is a weak union, such that each individual Nation-State still handles its own affairs, and thus is a Nation-State and not simply a State.
If the European Union was to become like the federal government in the United States of America, it too would eclipse the States of Europe (they would no longer be Nation-States) such that it would be the only entity that an alien (which I to you I would be, like to me, you are) would know, even though each State would still manage its own affairs, much like they do (or are supposed to do) in the United States of America. Government corruption in the United States of America has led to a unconstitutional usurpation of power in various areas by the United States federal government from the several States, even though the several States are still the proper authorities when it comes to their own domestic affairs, and this is much like how it will eventually be in Europe if the Nation-States of Europe decide to further centralize such that their national identities become merged into a central identity.
If that was to happen, people in Europe will no longer consider themselves Englishmen, French, or anything else but Europeans with a single country, much like how we in the United States of America no longer consider ourshelves here in the United States Californians, New Yorkers, or anything else but Americans with a single country. Even though both on paper and legally, we are still fifty countries united together no one thinks of us that way and while we might still use those times casually, those terms simply refer to where one identifies himself as being raised and not where one is a citizen, much like how things will be in Europe if the European Union is expanded like those in Europe would like to do.
Thus, that is why Illinois State does not care how a ruling against a company in England affects a company in Washington State, much like how England would not care how a ruling against a company in Illinois would affect a company in France. Although, I must say that while England would probably rule that way to hurt the French, there is no animousity by Illiniosians against Californians like there is by Englishmen against Frenchmen and vica-versa. | |
| Eric Martin
join:2005-06-19
66308 |  Courts = stupid internet awareness.
Do those idiots know what spamhaus does ?
Just ignore the courts.
If ICann goes along with this bullsh** then they will have neutralized all debate and arguments about US control of domains. | |
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Courts = stupid internet awareness. You hit the nail on the head. If domain control was not within the boundaries of US authority, the court would have no jurisdiction and the plantiff would be forced to bring the matter to an international body. I suppose a U.S. court could then try to order all communication providers to block traffic at international interconnects but what a daunting task that would be... | |
| 
PhoenixAZ
Joshua
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Phoenix, AZ
·Cox HSI
1 edit | How about education It seems that the courts these days need to be more educated in order to solve any internet related "crime"- How about make that a law that you need to have skills in IT and more in order to judge any internet related "crime"?
I probably sound like a dumb*** with that post, but what I am trying to say is only allow educated judges- educated in the computer fields to judge computer crimes? Make it a law!
We will see how the judge feels if they decide to allow Spamhaus to fall under when he gets his inbox full of v1@gr@ (Yes spam actually uses symbols to override spam filters and such) discounts...same for the idiot who has made SPAM legal.
--
»www.myspace.com/iamreallycoolandyouarenot | |
| |
rrz103
RichardZ
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Canton, MI
| Re: How about education The problem is that the court never even had the opportunity to decide the case on its merits (because Spamhaus never showed up to defend itself). Tech savvy or not, the judge never was able to look at all of the issues. Spamhaus could have set the record straight while establishing good precedent at the same time if it would have appeared. Instead the missing defendant forced the court to enter a default judgment for the plaintiff. However, I do wonder why the judge (if she didn't already) at least decide the merits of personal jurisdiction.
--
Rich Z - »www.richardz.com | |
| | | 
mazhurg
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Trenton, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: How about education Let get one thing straight to all of you that state that Spamhaus should have defended themselves out of country:
If that case happened out of the United States, E.G. in Britain, would everyone be so adamant in having a US company having to go there to defend itself? Or would the majority here (US) would have said BFD forget this?
This is yet another case of some backwater judge thinking that his purview is the whole planet.
Bah. | |
| | | |
rrz103
RichardZ
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Canton, MI
| Re: How about education Just so we're straight, if the circumstances were the same but countries 'switched,' I would still conclude that Spamhaus (or the hypothetical US company) should defend itself in this case. There's enough at stake here to make an appearance and put forth a legal argument.
Not showing up may be grounded in principal, but litigating the case would have been pragmatic and arguably principled as well.
View my post above to see why Spamhaus should have litigated this matter.
--
Rich Z - »www.richardz.com | |
| | | | | Necronomikro
join:2005-09-01 | Re: How about education So, if I'm running a company, I should pay for a lawyer to attend a TRIVIAL (no jurisdiction) court case? So, should I also pay for it if 30 other people decide to bring up cases against me? Flood me with legal fees, etc.... | |
| | | | | |
rrz103
RichardZ
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Canton, MI
| Re: How about education I understand what you're saying and I agree it's frustrating and unfair. My point is that this is the business climate we live in and Spamhaus had the opportunity to set the record straight and potentially prevent future litigation against them and other like-minded anti-spam services.
--
Rich Z - »www.richardz.com | |
| | | 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| Re: So what are you going to do about it? Send a protest with a good email address to a spam outfit!?
I don't think so 
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. | |
| 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| Who does e360 advertise for? And how does one opt-in to a e360 advertising campaign? I can find nothing searching with google.
I would think this is the ultimate question.
If they have no real opt-in methods, they can only be spam.
Plus I wouldn't mind knowing which companies use them so I can avoid them at all costs. | |
|
whatajoke
@rr.com
 from:
LiamJunket
| Spamhaus is a joke Are any serious administrators actually using Spamhaus out there? They are the equivalent of a kindergarden bully in the blacklist game. Whole netblocks flagged because of one rogue IP even if your company doesn't own the IP flagged. If you've ever been on this end of Spamhaus' "service" you know how impossible and downright rude they are to deal with.
There are better lists to use. | |
| |
Blocklist Subscriber
@bellsouth.net
| Re: Spamhaus is a joke Spammers made them the joke, but look at who's laughing. Makes the other blocklists start adding Spamhaus' current blocklist to their list, along with some notations and evidence gathering. Now who's the joke?
That's right, you [spammer/moron]. A chain of events will cause the millions of email adressees (to includes customers of Spamhaus, who have lots of money, like corporations and such) to revolt and call their congresscritters on the carpet about such bs as you spammers think everybody and their Ten Million friends wants.
Cut your own throat much? | |
| | 
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast
| said by whatajoke :
Are any serious administrators actually using Spamhaus out there? They are the equivalent of a kindergarden bully in the blacklist game. Whole netblocks flagged because of one rogue IP even if your company doesn't own the IP flagged. If you've ever been on this end of Spamhaus' "service" you know how impossible and downright rude they are to deal with.
There are better lists to use.
I agree. Spamhaus is almost as big a pain in the neck as the spammers. They are 2 sides of a dysfunctional system. Neither deserves to win. A pox on both their houses.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| 
richk_1957
If ..Then..Else
Premium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith
| I'm not a fan of spammers And Spamhaus does provide a legiminate service. But they're getting to big for their britches. Once you get on their lists, no matter how, it's almost impossible to get off. There was a thread about this last year, and in the thread someone listed a couple of small businesses that went belly-up because they happened to be in a range that Spamhaus listed as spammers. I know of one case where someone threatened to sue Spamhaus, and were told basically 'go ahead, we aren't in your country and are not subject to your laws'
And what they're saying is a veiled threat.
I don't like the way they're operating or they're attitude. | |
| | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | Re: I'm not a fan of spammers As with everything else in the world.... sometimes a few good have to be sacrificed for the many.
We all may not like that and may have even a harder time when it hits close to home, but that is a fact of life and it is not going to go away. | |
| | |
richk_1957
If ..Then..Else
Premium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith | Re: I'm not a fan of spammers It isn't just a few | |
| 
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| I love it The spammers are still calling themselves a legitimate business, what a joke. They are nothing but a bunch of annoying P*** pots. So they are suing the companies to stop them from providing the tools so I don't get that crap in my email box. When will these spammers get it? I don't want to see there crap.
I am just thankful that Earthlink lets me choose what emails go into my email box and what goes in the trash instead of Earthlink deciding. I am sure spammers would sue Earthlink just for that.
As for this ruling, the judge don't know her A** from a whole in the ground. Makes me mad when a judge don't know what the hell they are doing. | |
| 
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
1 edit | A day without Spamhaus
Wouldn't affect me at all. I think it's foolish to depend on some foregn outfit for spam blocking. Excuses aside, the only reason you use it is to not have to pay people to do what has to be done, which is the typical short sighted, profit motivated corporate outlook.
Your companies should be doing what is required and lobbying for effective laws and punishments backed up internationally. The only time the avalanche of spam will stop is when there is actual risk to ones wellbeing in doing so. Never mind in creating the bot computers that do the spamming to begin with.
Sooner or later, this problem will HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED no matter if you like it or not. Spam has gotten to the point where it is creating entirely too much havoc on the internet.
Just look at the talk about how being without spamhaus would result in BILLIONS of unblocked spam messages and the havoc it would cause. It's rediculous to allow yourselves to be put in this position to begin with.
As in anything else, there needs to be some control on the seemingly unfettered actions of the people scamming, phishing and spamming. Sooner or later, we will have to face reality. There is, quite simply, NO OTHER CHOICE.
We simply cannot let criminals have free reign on the internet simply because we want the same unfettered freedom that they abuse. It's akin to letting the fox into the henhouse and devour everything. To do so will bring down the entire internet in the end. | |
| 
Dagda1175
join:2001-06-17
Goleta, CA | good night to an overbearing company Spamhaus meant well, but theyve blocked far too many legit emails for them to stay relevant. Its like shooting at a person in a crowd ....with buckshot. | |
| 
DOStradamus
MVM
join:2003-11-04
Santa Rosa, CA
1 edit | Remember MONSTERHUT? One has to go back a few years to Monsterhut.com's brazen display of extreme lower-intestinal arrogance to even approach this act!
[Monsterhut harvested email addys directly from Network Solutions' WHOIS db, then brazenly denied doing it, after some recipients of their spew claimed "I use that address exclusively for my business with NSI." In fact those illegitimi spammed ME at "nsi-regs@.org", which I used exclusively for...
The court ruling does not surprise me, however... The numbers of the "ignorant, lazy, greedy and gullible" are growing by leaps and bounds nowadays. It is not common for a public-opinion poll, on a completely preposterous thesis, to yield results of twenty to thirty percent either agreeing with it, or finding it worthy of consideration (!)
Just wait... in another thirty years, the major public debate will be over how humanely the Army kills enemy combatants... | |
| |
anon823
@verizon.net
| If Spamhaus exits If Spamhaus exits the scene, I wonder how many ISP's will just continue to use the final list. If that happens, the spammers will need to go after every ISP and force them to not use any addresses formerly obtained from the Spamhaus list. This could force some smaller ISP's to stop blocking and some may be forced out of business.
I think that it is time for the major ISP's to fund an institution that will take over from Spamhaus. If the level of funding is high enough, the spammers are welcome to bring suit, but they will need to mount a fully funded effort. | |
| |
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| Re: If Spamhaus exits "I think that it is time for the major ISP's to fund an institution that will take over from Spamhaus."
I think it is time for the ISP's to start going after this scum and lobby to get laws passed with some actual teeth in them that not only allow ISP's to cut them off/block them when caught spewing, wether directly, by bot, or, from overseas proxy, but also allows the information to be turned over to the federal government for prosecution with some real jail penalties and NO probation, etc.
Finally get some value from out tax dollars. I include phishers and identity theves also, in the above. | |
|
rrz103
RichardZ
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Canton, MI
| ICAAN Says It Can't Looks like ICAAN's been monitoring things and released a statement saying they are unable to comply IF such a court order came their way.
ICANN cannot comply with any order requiring it to suspend or place a client hold on Spamhaus.org or any specific domain name because ICANN does not have either the ability or the authority to do so. Only the Internet registrar with whom the registrant has a contractual relationship - and in certain instances the Internet registry - can suspend an individual domain name. --
Rich Z - »www.richardz.com | |
| mobbo
join:2005-04-13
Denton, TX
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Spamhaus destroys small businesses... and doesn't care! I've had many of my webhosting clients on my servers get blacklisted with ZERO proof, sometimes from forum user confirmation emails, sometimes from order receipts, or even from REQUESTED mailings/newsletters. Besides all the support issues our company deals with (customer service, network problems, DDoS attacks, marketing, etc) getting IP ranges blacklisted for petty, unfounded reasons with VERY LITTLE recourse is unfair.
Ever tried appealing to them? It takes hours to get the process started. And HOURS of downtime for a business is like closing up shop in the middle of the busy day.
There are many other solutions to stopping spam that are pattern based rather than IP based. People can also stop putting their email addresses out there in plain sight. | |
| | restring
join:2006-09-22
Manchester, NH | Re: Spamhaus destroys small businesses... and doesn't care! Sounds like you need to move your servers to a hosting company which doesn't do business with spammers OR your customers need to stop hitting SBL spamtraps.
Herb ( whose real email addy is protected by the SBL ) | |
| |
sweintz
Premium
join:2002-03-01
Hamden, CT
| said by mobbo :I've had many of my webhosting clients on my servers get blacklisted with ZERO proof, sometimes from forum user confirmation emails, sometimes from order receipts, or even from REQUESTED mailings/newsletters. Hmmm.. exactly how could requested emails be going to spamtraps, huh?
They do NOT list IP's for a TRUE confirmation emails.
ie: this is to confirm you signed up - if you did, please reply, otherwise your email will be dropped off our list"
as opposed to
"this is to confirm you signed up. If you do NOT want to be signed up, please reply to..."
The first example is opt-in. The second example is NOT opt-in. | |
|
sweintz
Premium
join:2002-03-01
Hamden, CT
| UK MP calls for sanctioning of US judge »www.computeractive.co.uk/compute···ig-chief
A UK MP has called the actions by a US court against Spamhaus outrageous and will call on the Americans for an apology and the suspension of the judge in question.
| |
| |
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26 | Re: UK MP calls for sanctioning of US judge
And here we go. Guess who will end up eating crow? | |
| | | |
|
|
