Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Australian Spammer Sues Back

Posted by timothy on Thu May 30, 2002 03:56 PM
from the gird-well-your-loins dept.
Spam
Vilorman writes: "We've all heard the one about the spammers begin sued. Now, an Ausie spammer is suing back, for being blacklisted. Claiming damages and equipment replacement costs and so on. The whole article is over at Yahoo. So, I guess now, not only are we subjected to the spam, but we can't block it either?"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Australian Spammer Sues Back 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • how the heck does replacing equipment that factor in? I can understand where they're coming from in terms of damages, but replacing equipment? Isnt it just a configuration flag or something in the mail relay?

    • Re:equipment replacement? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Winged Cat (101773) <{wingcat} {at} {pacbell.net}> on Thursday May 30 2002, @04:15PM (#3612562)
      Apparently, the IP addresses counted as "equipment" that had to be replaced, not to mention the email system. <shakes head>

      T3 is seeking loss and damages of $7,907 (AU$14,000) for replacing blocked or compromised IP numbers, $2,683 (AU$4,750) for labor costs of technicians to establish an alternative e-mail system, $2,824 (AU$5,000) to purchase a new server computer and $11,296 (AU$20,000) for loss of income it claims to have incurred over a 20-day waiting period for a new Internet connection to be installed.

      None of which was necessary. Change business models so as *not* to spam, which was the action requested (and quite probably spelled out in email to the spammer at one point), and none of that moeny would have had to be spent (unless "closing open relays and no longer spamming" counts as "establishing an alternative email system", but that's still brought upon self).

      Jeremy Malcolm, an independent Perth-based solicitor who specializes in IT law and is representing McNichol [the defendant], said he wouldn't be putting in a defense straight away and would be applying for a summary judgment in the hopes of not having to go to trial.

      Damn straight!

      Malcolm described the statement of claim against his client as a ?fairly weak claim?brought about to intimidate a critic of T3 Direct.?

      Isn't that the definition of a SLAPP suit in the States?
    • you understand better than you think. Meaning, right, there's absolutely NO DAMN NEED to replace said equipment. It's obvious that this lawsuit is frivolous, an attempt from the spammer to annoy and harass the spamee or the guys who keep the spammer list into not messing with him. (either that, or the spammer's tech guy said all that stuff was needed and is just ripping off the spammer).

      Personally I think that kind of behavior merits physical violence, but that's just me. :)

  • In other news... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bonker (243350) on Thursday May 30 2002, @04:01PM (#3612408)
    ...A robber once successfully sued a homeowner because he fell out of a window and broke his leg while escaping after a heist.

    This is bullshit. Spam is theft. Spammers steal the use of bandwidth, machine use, and disk space from ISPs and users. Any court who even thinks twice about letting this go to trial will be so caught up in legal technicalities that it won't hear *any* trial fairly.
    • The lesson from that trial, of course, is "dead men tell no tales." Also, "if they fall out, drag them back in before calling the cops."

    • ...A robber once successfully sued a homeowner because he fell out of a window and broke his leg while escaping after a heist.

      Citation, please. If you can't provide one, I'm going to have to agree with Snopes [snopes2.com] in that it's likely an urban legend.

      • There was a case in Canada where an individual attempted to break into a shopping mall, broke his leg and won. (LocatioN: Surry, B.C., Aproximatly 1988, 'Surry Place Mall'.). Sorry, no further details.

        He lost on appeal though.

    • Yup. If you have to defend your home with force, you're better off killing an intruder than wounding him. And if he makes it outside onto the lawn before expiring, drag him back inside just to be sure his family can't sue you for killing an innocent passer-by. *sigh* Mighty sad commentary on our screwed-up legal system.

      On the other hand, this guy is innocent until proven guilty, and deserves his day in court. Is there a clause in the law that says it's your own fault if you are injured (however injury is defined in the particular situation) during commission of a crime? There should be. It could be called the "Personal Responsibility Act".

    • So this makes me think of some low-life, sitting in a basement in front of a computer. He presses the send key, and suddenly jumps up and repeatedly screams, "Eat it bitch! Eat it all up! Hormel never tasted this good!" at the computer screen.

      Spammers and those amateur pornography guys behind the camera....I can't figure out which one is sleazier.

  • The article, and quotes in the article, both call the case a "first".

    Didn't ORBS get sued?

    • This lawsuit is against a end user. Not a anti spam list or anything like it. This was a user complainig over spam to an organisation like ORBS. This resulted in a shutdown (whether it's the end users fault or not isn't known) of the spammer...

      Well... i would like to see a trial like this over here.. hell... i even volunteer in such a case to be the end user....

  • Spam stoppers are required (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HerrGlock (141750) on Thursday May 30 2002, @04:03PM (#3612428) Homepage
    I do not care if you have a business, there are too many ways for you to advertise already, you do not have to require the entire world to listen to your sales pitch.

    The RBL and similar are volunteer organizations, there is no requirement for them to be used by anyone or any company. This is not even an issue because people are only securing their own networks from overloaded mail traffic. If this gentleman wants to solicit, it would be better to start a page for the company and then go looking for handshakes to put his banner on other pages, if he uses that, then people expect to get ads. Forcing his way into your personal mailbox is not a right in any country that I'm aware of.

    DanH
    • The RBL, to the best of my knowledge, is not now a "volunteer" organization since they went to a subscription model in order to use their lists.

      SPEWS, on the other hand, seems to be a volunteer organization. If anyone knew who operated it, I'd go ask them about it. But they don't ask for money, and they've been incredibly successful in getting spammers to whine a lot about their e-mail getting rejected.
      • The thing with email is that it is even easier! How hard is it to push the delete key?
        You wouldn't by any chance happen to be this Barry Dennis shithead, would you?

        I just checked my procmail logs. How many spam messages do you think I got today? 221 messages! In one fucking day! And they're all fucking multipart MIME or have crappy fucking attachments so each message is hundreds of K in size. In contrast, even counting high-traffic mailing lists, I got 41 real messages today -- and they're all plain text so they're a few K each. This is the price I pay for having been "on the Internet" since 1986. Yup, you read that right -- sixteen years ago.

        Do I have to pay for physical junk mail to get delivered to me? No. And there is exactly one third-class bundle in my physical mailbox every day, easy to toss out. Do I have to pay -- in bandwidth, disk space, and time for setting up my procmail filters -- so some piece of shit marketing jackass can make a few bucks? You bet.

        Spam is killing email. You kids today, you don't know what the golden age of email was like! Email was not like sending a physical piece of mail. I could publicise my email on the network (think Usenet), and anyone anywhere could send me email and I could send email to people I'd never met before. They always replied, just like I always replied. I made many friends, got a lot of help on various matters, and helped others on various matters. Today, to be able to send me email, you have to get on my "white list" -- I only accept email from people I know.

  • This guy is already losing points in my book. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by datastew (529152) on Thursday May 30 2002, @04:05PM (#3612447)
    T3 is seeking loss and damages of $7,907 (AU$14,000) for replacing blocked or compromised IP numbers, $2,683 (AU$4,750) for labor costs of technicians to establish an alternative e-mail system, $2,824 (AU$5,000) to purchase a new server computer and $11,296 (AU$20,000) for loss of income. . .

    He needs a new server? Maybe so he can run more effective anti-spam filter programs.

    Seems to me that he is relying on the judge not being too technologically savvy.

  • Oh, get a grip. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by The Wing Lover (106357) <awh@awh.org> on Thursday May 30 2002, @04:05PM (#3612451) Homepage

    So, I guess now, not only are we subjected to the spam, but we can't block it either?

    People sue for things all the time. It doesn't mean that the case has any merit whatsoever.

  • should have known about the blacklists (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bberg (516819) on Thursday May 30 2002, @04:06PM (#3612457) Homepage
    I'm always telling my employer that if he isn't carefull we will get blacklisted, sense we are ridding a "grey line" with our mailings. I'm just waiting for the day I can tell him "I told you so". Now that he purchased an email farming program I be that day will come sooner than later.
  • Look at this:

    Why I love spam [com.com]

    Damn, I think I'd punch that guy in the face.

    • I agree with your conclusion on the article

      Hit delete.

      I hit delete, and I'm free. As for the rest of my spam: Keep it coming!

      he forgot a few steps though
      Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete... Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete ,Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete, Hit delete....

      Either way this guy is missing the point entirely, we hate spam because we didn't ask for it if he likes spam he can ask for himself to be put on mailing lists. Not only then will the not get the porno and 2 credit card offers a day he doesn't like but he would get more things that suit him because he requested things material like that. New laws like the one the EU is proposing would work only to his benefit. This is just one uninformed opinion contrasted against mine and the vast majority of other /.ers uninformed opinions. And I think we're winning:)

  • Free speech (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jdavidb (449077) on Thursday May 30 2002, @04:07PM (#3612472) Homepage Journal

    I'm usually an extreme free speech advocate. I've even been known to argue for the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. That said, free speech gives you the right to speak, not the right to force someone to hear you, and certainly not the right to force someone else to bear the cost of publication. The newspaper editor doesn't have to pay to publish your letter, Rob Malda and andover.net don't have to pay to let you post your comment, and I don't have to pay to download your spam. And free speech also means the other guy has a right to say, "Don't listen to this guy; he's a knucklehead." (or "don't accept IP traffic from this host, it's a spammer")

    • Re:Free speech (Score:5, Informative)

      by Caradoc (15903) on Thursday May 30 2002, @04:09PM (#3612512) Homepage
      Bingo. Your "right" to send e-mail ends at my MX. I'm under no obligation to accept incoming e-mail at all.

      Spam isn't a "free speech" issue. It's a "theft of resources" issue according to CompuServe vs. Cyber Promotions, wherein the judge decided that spamming was indeed "actionable trespass of chattel."

      • The absolute free speech principle I usually subscribe to would make these responses:

        Free speech ends when what you are saying is untrue and hurtful to someone else's business.

        Why? Does this constitute an abridgment under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution? (Yes, I know this is not a U.S. case.)

        Let's imagine that say buy.com was put on an anti-spammer list... How much revenue would they lose?

        If it's my list, I can do whatever I want with it. It's not a government sponsored list. The people providing me the resources to produce the list can choose to quit providing me those resources, if they want. The people using my list can choose to quit using the list, too, if they want.

        Whose fault would it be?

        The fault of the people using the list. But they don't have a contract with buy.com to provide connectivity, so I don't see that anyone should be allowed to make them.

        I know you may disagree with these principles for various reasons, but this is how I would address them. (At least, most of the time. I waver and change my mind sometimes.)

  • "it could end up bigger than Ben Hur."

    Yeah, if you can get sued just for claiming that a well-known spammer is spammer, this will be a blockbuster in courthouses over the world...

    I can already see the next generation of spam... "Make $$$$$$$$ free!!!! Sue anti-spammers!!!! "

    • I can already see the next generation of spam... "Make $$$$$$$$ free!!!! Sue anti-spammers!!!! "

      Or, if this case gets tossed out and anti-spam laws go into effect...

      "Make $$$$$$$$ free!!!! Sue spammers!!!! (But not us, please.)"
  • If that estimate they gave for "loss of income" for 20 days is justifiable (which of course, it may not be), it is likely that SPAM is NEVER going away.
    Not if you can recur the cost for a good SPAM server w/in the first week of operations.

    However, those numbers are probably bloated, and this is all speculation. But still, the fact that they can *still* make money off of SPAM indicates a greater problem than just the inconvenience of unwanted mail in your mailbox. It means lots of people are paying attention, and spending money, and supporting the whole system.

  • Case Record Web Site (Score:5, Informative)

    by TekPolitik (147802) on Thursday May 30 2002, @04:09PM (#3612507) Journal
    The official web site of the defence is at http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/ [ilaw.com.au] (Mirror [perth.hm]). There are also plans to set up a defence fund [perth.hm].
  • Personally, I don't think the sapmmer will win this one. There is case history [epic.org] saying that an ISP has every right to filter out spam they do not want.

    Now, this is a case that happened in the US instead of Austrailia, so it may not be able to be cited in this particular law suit, but it shows that courts do not feel that spammer have a God-given right to send their mail to anyone and everyone they want to.

    - Sam

  • A programmer with $8 000 monthly salary killed a spammer, resulting in a 50 year penalty.

    Penalized programmer seeks compensation for $4 800 000 lost income (programmer has so vague understanding of money, that he forgets that this does not represent the correct value after 50 years ;)

    So, how actually does this differ from this spammer's case?

  • This is such a joke (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pogle (71293) on Thursday May 30 2002, @04:13PM (#3612547) Homepage
    If they're losing ~$10,000USD in 20 days, can they even afford the legal fees for long? Is it worth it for them, if they are that low profit, to invest thousands and thousands of dollars into lawyers for a court battle?

    Think about it all you American /.ers...we could each send them a dollar to recoup their 'losses'.... just make sure you write something nasty about spammers on the bill.

    Or we could send the bill to the guy being sued to use in his defense...we'd bury T3 Direct's legal fund in a day ;-)

    Or...I could buy a soda. Mmmm...caffeine...

  • Precident (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gnovos (447128) <[ten.deppihc] [ta] [sovong]> on Thursday May 30 2002, @04:20PM (#3612642) Homepage Journal
    What kind of precident will it set if he wins? Well, very simply, it will open the doors for DDoS kiddies to get away with thier attacks quite legally (in Austrailia at least) simply by making sure each ping packet that goes out contains an ad for a get rich quick scheme... This is some bad, bad stuff.

  • "T3 is seeking loss and damages of $7,907 (AU$14,000) for replacing blocked or compromised IP numbers, $2,683 (AU$4,750) for labor costs of technicians to establish an alternative e-mail system, $2,824 (AU$5,000) to purchase a new server computer

    So because his IP was being blocked he HAD to get a new $2800 server? IP's are NOT hardcoded into the box (MAC addresses in the NIC's are) Does he relly think that little addition is going to go unnoticed?


    and $11,296 (AU$20,000) for loss of income it claims to have incurred over a 20-day waiting period for a new Internet connection to be installed"

    So this guy makes $564 a day with this shit?!
    Maybe you really can get rich quick (in court, of course)...
  • What if this weren't about spam email, but about a mechanic who worked on someones car? If your mechanic mis-diagnoses your car, puts in the wrong part, and causes more damage than when he started, do you expect him to fix it all, and fix it right? And if he doesn't, you have to take it to someone else, do you have a valid case to make the first mechanic pay the bill?

    Of course it all hinges on the fact that the first mechanic -did- make a mistake. If not, then you're out the cost of the lawyer too.
  • I think this guy should counter-sue. Now that news of this suit has reached /., his site is now unreachable. Thus creating a DDoS.

    This DDoS was created as a direct result of the lawsuit being filed.

  • Mailserver are private (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Erik Hensema (12898) on Thursday May 30 2002, @04:32PM (#3612798) Homepage

    Mailservers are private. Nobody can force me to receive anybody's mail. I can block whoever I want using whatever method I like. If I want to block connections using some blacklist, that's MY choice. The blacklist only offers me advice on what connection to accept or not. I can freely choose to follow that advice or not.

    In short: sue whoever you like. You'll loose.

  • Check out some of the books the T3 Group is selling...

    $ales $cript Book [t3direct.com.au]
    a collection of the most powerful and useful phrases (scripts) a sales professional can use to counter any objection and close the sale

    Web Marketing - beyond the basics [t3direct.com.au]
    covering everything from Search Engine Optimisation, Permission Marketing Techniques, Viral Marketing, Multi Domain Registration, Opt-In Mail Lists, Competition Sites and much more

    Yes, just what my business was looking for... forcing your customers to say yes, and such time honored promotional practices such as viral marketing! How did I manage to run a website without this vital knowledge?!?

    Well, at any rate, there's another domain for my blocklist...

    t3direct.com.au ERROR:"553 Delivery blocked; cannot accept mail from pro-spam domains."

  • SpamAssassin (Score:3, Interesting)

    by totallygeek (263191) on Thursday May 30 2002, @04:38PM (#3612845) Homepage
    This is the beauty of Spam Assassin [spamassassin.org]. You do not blacklist or build elaborate access tables. The spammer never gets a notification that his mail violates any RFC or is triggered as spam. All that happens is you rate inbound mail by certain criteria and if it hits a scored threshhold it is placed in a container mailbox for admin review. No lawsuits can be filed...

  • Maybe I'm missing something (Score:3, Informative)

    by Liquor (189040) on Thursday May 30 2002, @04:49PM (#3612923) Homepage
    Maybe there's more information somewhere else, but, from what I did NOT see in the articles:

    First off: Is there any proof whatsoever that being listed in SPEWS is in any way incorrect or libelous? Certainly it is not illegal, even in AU to add an IP block to that address as being friendly to either a known spammer or a known spamvertized site. After all, SPEWS bills itself as being opinion that nobody has to follow.

    Unless being added to SPEWS has some form of illegality, what basis is there for suing Mr McNichol for expressing an opinion?

    Secondly, if SPEWS is operated secretly, then how can anybody prove that this Joseph McNichol was responsible for them being blocked?

    Is there some provable connection between him and SPEWS somehow?

    It would certainly seem likely that sufficient people on the receiving end of the spam would have complained sooner or later such that SPEWS would put them onto the blacklist.

    And even so - don't SPEWS say in their FAQ that they don't block sites based on complaints? That they depend on the knowledge of the *unknown* people that set up the lists directly? That it requires repeated offenses before a company is considered a 'Known Spammer'?

    So where is the evidence - not apparent anywhere in anything I have seen of this matter - that there is any actual connection between Mr. McNichol and SPEWS?

    If either of these proofs is missing, then this should be dismissed by the first competent judge in any jurisdiction.
  • If they weren't already, their IP ranges will probably be in every other blacklist on earth in the next hour or two. They have put themselves out of business.

    The fact that the article on slashdot should insure this, and I suspect that a number of somebodys will be keeping an eye on this company to insure that their IPs are blocked no matter how they get changed.

    Why am I reminded of Bernie Shifman?

  • This certainly isn't new. I was privileged to be sued by the "Spam King" himself (Sanford Wallace) in mid-1999 [markwelch.com]. He blamed me when his internet connection was cut by Verio after I informed Verio that Wallace was sending spam through their network. (Verio had knowingly agreed to sell service to Wallace, on the condition that he not send any unsolicited commercial email, which is like hiring a vampire to work in a blood bank and telling him he'll be fired if he drinks any blood -- it's not a question of "if," just a question of "when.")

    I think Wallace may have deliberately sent me spam in order to provoke me -- he knew I'd complain since he was breaching his earlier promise to block my email addresses after earlier complaints. By provoking me to complain, he could claim a "victim" role, by falsely stating that I had "asked" to receive the emails and then unfairly complained and caused his business to lose its only internet connection (every other ISP and backbone provider had blacklisted him years earlier).

    Spanford Wallace filed his suit in Pennsylvania (despite lack of jurisdiction) because he knew I'd have to hire an attorney there and spend thousands of dollars in legal fees and court costs to dismiss the suit. He knew the suit would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and he chose not to sue me in California because he knew that California has a SLAPP statute that would have permitted me to collect attorneys' fees and damages (Pennsylvania didn't have a SLAPP statute).

    The spammers' only goals in filing lawsuits are to gain "unfair advantage" -- adverse publicity for the opponent, and deliberate choice of an inconvenient and expensive forum.

    It worked for Wallace: I stopped making spam complaints for many months because I was so distracted by the lawsuit. And he also deterred others from reporting spam complaints, by loudly and publicly announcing that he (and other spammers) would not hesitate to deliberately abuse the court system in order to punish honest people who make valid complaints.

    Wallace's publicity campaign was transparent: he decided to file the lawsuit one day after I appeared on CNBC regarding another consumer advocacy issue; he wanted to "piggy-back" by suing a well-known consumer advocate. He posted a copy of the lawsuit on his web site and emailed dozens of reporters just minutes after the complaint was filed (of course, I learned of the suit only when the reporters called me, and since I couldn't respond to a suit I hadn't seen, Wallace's false and malicious claims were republished as if they were true -- with no follow-up when the suit was abandoned and dismissed several months later.

    Although Wallace's suit was filed in Pennsylvania despite the absence of jurisdiction, I was forced to spend $5,000 to hire a Philadelphia attorney to prepare and file a motion to dismiss (I chose an attorney who had previously obtained a judgment against Wallace). As soon as we filed the motion to dismiss, Wallace simply abandoned the lawsuit (he submitted papers to the court claiming that a "settlement had been reached," though there was no settlement.

    The only good news is that I haven't heard from him since then, but of course the bad news is that he drained $5,000 of my money and a lot of my time, and simultaneously scared off someone interested in buying a web site I owned (the offer to buy my business for $350,000 was withdrawn the day after the suit was filed, and five months later I sold the business to another buyer for $175,000).

    Wallace also successfully deterred many spam complaints by proving his continued willingness to abuse court processes for personal gain.)

    I assume that the spammer in the current case filed a suit in the hopes of driving up others' costs and extorting a settlement.

    • An IT professional whose lifeblood depends on amassing lists of valid e-mail addresses?

      That makes you, what? A spammer? Or a marketer?

      It doesn't make you a "professional," in my book.

    • Re:not so crazy? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheTrunkDr. (516695) <`ten.sulet' `ta' `reivax'> on Thursday May 30 2002, @04:09PM (#3612501) Homepage
      Well I hope to god this is intentional flamebait. Being blacklisted causes no damage to any equipment, most of what these guys are after is rediculous.

      $7,907 (AU$14,000) for replacing blocked or compromised IP numbers, $2,683 (AU$4,750) for labor costs of technicians to establish an alternative e-mail system, $2,824 (AU$5,000) to purchase a new server computer and $11,296 (AU$20,000) for loss of income it claims to have incurred over a 20-day waiting period

      hmm last I knew it didn't cost $8k to get a new ip?!?! technicians?!? for what changing an ip on a server, nevermind about buying a new server, and if their isp takes 20 days to issue a new ip, they should be sueing their isp! I've worked at a company that got blackballed for relaying mail way back when spammers just started bouncing mail around, once we discovered the problem it was literally, turn off relaying - 5 minutes(max), get new ip from isp - one phone call (about 10 minutes), reassign ip and reboot server - 10 minutes. This is a ton of horsecrap, nevermind the fact that they're stealling people's bandwidth for sending unsolicited unwanted e-mail, I pay for it and get your crap off of it!!

    • The exact same comment was posted in the story on Opt-Out decision in the EU story.

      Boy, did he get you guys!

    • The death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment for the victim. If spammers are put to sleep, we will see no justice.

      Why don't we lock the convicted spammers in a padded room with a television set to display an endless stream of infomercials, commercials, and religious programming with no way to turn it off? Better yet, we can have a pay-per-view 24/7 webcam focused on the spammer shackled to the wall that is subjected to this treatment. The webcam page can have pushbutton forms to impliment things such as water-drip torchure, the pneumatic ram punching glove hit him in the stomach gag, release one starved and abused lab rat, and other inventive buttons...

      I think spammers should be kept alive for humanitarian reasons such as these. They would benefit the world with stress research and the mentioned entertainment possibilities.

      • Why don't we lock the convicted spammers in a padded room with a television set to display an endless stream of infomercials, commercials, and religious programming with no way to turn it off? Better yet, we can have a pay-per-view 24/7 webcam focused on the spammer shackled to the wall that is subjected to this treatment. The webcam page can have pushbutton forms to impliment things such as water-drip torchure, the pneumatic ram punching glove hit him in the stomach gag, release one starved and abused lab rat, and other inventive buttons...
        For shame! Why starve and abuse a lab rat? What did the rat ever do to anyone?

    • Re:Guilt (Score:2, Informative)

      by Software (179033)
      First of all, it's presumed innocent, not innocent. Second, the concept of innocence has no place in a civil trial. The decision is based upon the preponderance (50.1%) of the evidence. IANAL, but I took a business law class.

    • Ok, find the email address of the Judge and of his staff and get it on every spamlist you know of. Ditto once we know who the jurors are.

      OK, even assuming the latter were possible, it is extremely rare in Australia for a civil trial to involve a jury - usually the parties are content to have it decided by a judge sitting alone

    • Too bad you didn't bother to read the SPEWS site - if you did you would know they don't sensor anything. I quote (emphasis added):

      "We do not control the network traffic on anyone else's servers; therefore, we are not the ones rejecting your email, the mailserver you attempted to send email to generated the bounce. We simply provide a public list of ranges of Internet space (IP addresses) which we do not wish to exchange traffic with. Other networks may choose to filter traffic on their systems using our list. SPEWS never touches any email (or other data packets) between your network and someone else's network. Any email bouncing or packet blocking that takes place occurs at the receiving system."

      That is like me saying "I don't like to talk to Bill Gates", and someone thinks my opinion on who I like to talk to matters a whole lot, so they decide not to talk to anyone I don't talk to. As a result, they don't talk to Bill Gates either. And how am I liable? Why don't you post your e-mail address with your post and then see how you feel about "censorware" after your mailbox is full of penis enlargement offers.
    • And that's perfectly fair, if you ask me. Not that the Nevada judicial system is owned by the various casino organizations, but that people can be shitlisted. I wouldn't want some cheater/criminal trying to cheat or steal in my casino. However, it would be a lot better if the cheater/criminal could protest his case before the .

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.