Australian Spammer Sues Back 416
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?"
equipment replacement? (Score:2, Insightful)
Spam stoppers are required (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:not so crazy? (Score:2, Insightful)
That makes you, what? A spammer? Or a marketer?
It doesn't make you a "professional," in my book.
This guy is already losing points in my book. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
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")
That's quite a bit of income. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:not so crazy? (Score:5, Insightful)
$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!!
Re:Not everyone hate spam... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Don't support censorware! (Score:2, Insightful)
"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.
IP's not hard coded! FRAUD! (Score:2, Insightful)
"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)...
Making Mistakes. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Mailserver are private (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:In other news... (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that injury compensation and the like are covered in tort law. That means that judges and not legislators define the law. It's 100% precident.
OTOH a spammer IS innocent until proven guilty and is entitled to his day in court. It's his legal right to confront his accusers (the blacklist people) and I don't blame him for trying.
Re:Making Mistakes. (Score:2, Insightful)
A more appropriate analogy would be
A mechanic opens a shop down the street. Every day you come out and find stupid fliers on the winshield of your (and everyone else in the apt. complex's) car. You complain about it and someone who works for the complex hears about it. The apt. complex tells the mechanic to stop soliciting on their private property and annoying their customers. The mechanic sues you for interfering with his advertising.
It isnt a simple mistake. He knows what he's doing is, at the least, not appreciated by the majority of the people he affects. At the most, he knows that many countries are passing laws restricting that kind of behaviour.
He's gambling that he'll get away with it, and now he's gambling that some guy who has a vague connection to his being blocked will cave, settle out of court and help him cover the cost of setting up a new spam system so he can get back to business as usual.
Hope the spammer wins (Score:1, Insightful)
Spam truly sucks. Mailing lists should be opt-in, not opt-out. I regularly use SpamCop to report spammers.
BUT...
While it is easy to be instantly blackholed, getting your company's mail server off of a blackhole list is another matter. The 'net is littered with stories of companies' servers being repeatedly blackholed even after they either cleaned up their act, or fixed their misconfigured server. It is not up to the blacklist organizations to punish. Yet they have tremendous power. I read some of the posts saying that using a blackhole list is voluntary. This is bull. You and I both know that even large ISPs use the list, therefore, someone upstream can block your legitimate mail to the recipient, all because someone blackholed your IP address, or a complete block of IP addresses that you happen to be in.
Spammers should be hunted down and smacked silly. But spammers are not the only ones who get blackholed. The 'net doesn't belong to uber-geeks, it belongs to everyone. Mis-configured servers happen. How about lifting the phone, and calling the company to let them know. Too difficult? Easier to just blackhole them? Then you are the problem. Not them.
If a blackhole provider makes it so easy to GET ON the blackhole list, then it should be JUST AS EASY TO GET OFF ONCE THE SERVER IS FIXED.
Yet there seems to be no liability on the part of the blackhole list providers when they fail to remove servers from their list once any mis-configuration (open relays) whether intentional or not, is corrected.
There needs to be a real nice, bloody lawsuit, one that tears a new hole into the backside of one of the blackhole list providers, that fixes this bull of making it difficult to get the server off the list when fixed. Only when this happens will the blackhole list providers have something to crow about. Until then, they are as much scum as the spammers.
Re:Free speech (Score:3, Insightful)
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.)
Re:same as a boycott (Score:2, Insightful)