Slashdot Log In
Spamhaus Responds To Spammers' Lawsuit
Posted by
timothy
on Mon May 12, 2003 06:51 PM
from the whack-a-mole dept.
from the whack-a-mole dept.
ShaiHulud-23 writes "A suit was recently filed by EMarketersAmerica.org, a fledgling secret organization of spammers, against the Spamhaus Project, (and other anti-spam sites) seeking to prevent the publication of the anonymous plaintiffs' IP addresses in the Spamhaus Block List (SBL). The suit requested a response from the named defendants, and Spamhaus director Steve Linford has provided one, dismantling the spammers' case point by point."
Related Stories
[+]
Judge Rules In Favor Of Spamhaus 232 comments
Waylon writes "U.S. District Judge Charles Kocoras has ruled in favor of The Spamhaus Project. e360 Insight responded on its homepage, saying the judge's ruling was 'a devastating loss of personal freedom for all U.S. citizens'. As opposed to shutting down a voluntary service which tries to mitigate the millions of unsolicited emails that e360 Insight pumps out every single day." From the article: "In his order, Judge Kocoras wrote that the relief e360insight sought is 'too broad to be warranted in this case' and that suspending the domain name would 'cut off all lawful online activities of Spamhaus, not just those that are in contravention' of the default judgment. He also called e360insight's motion one that 'does not correspond to the gravity of the offending conduct.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Spamhaus Responds To Spammers' Lawsuit
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 464 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Crap, my first story has a typo (Score:5, Informative)
(http://geek.focalcurve.com/ | Last Journal: Friday December 05 2003, @03:56AM)
Also, here's some amusing dirt [chickenboner.com] on the lawyer who filed the suit (and registered the EMarketersAmerica domain.)
Re:Crap, my first story has a typo (Score:5, Funny)
They're not very good yet (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/my/amigos | Last Journal: Friday July 06, @11:22AM)
NOTE: secret organizations should NOT file public lawsuits.
Re:They're not very good yet (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They're not very good yet (Score:5, Informative)
Emarketersamerica.org
555 South Federal Highway
Suite 450
Boca Raton, FL 33432
T: 561.367.7990
F: 561.367.7980
www.emarketersamerica.org
admin@emarketersamer
Not suggesting anything at all, really.
IANAL... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.buddhanet.net/ | Last Journal: Friday December 13 2002, @09:32AM)
After all, they got Capone for income tax.
Re:IANAL... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.troz.com/)
No. Re:IANAL... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday September 06 2005, @03:27PM)
Re:No. Re:IANAL... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.tetsujin.org/)
Pleadings are signed by attorneys pursuant to Rule 11 under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and similar rules in all state courts I'm familiar with. Rule 11 can leave an attorney open to some pretty nasty sanctions if he submits a pleading that includes misrepresentations of fact.
Re:here's a mirror (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.keepersoflists.org/ | Last Journal: Monday August 20 2001, @08:52AM)
ironic.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ironic.. (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.neville-longbottom.com/)
Tired of the
WE CAN HELP!
For 6 easy payments of $49.95....
^_^
Re:That's nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://geek.focalcurve.com/ | Last Journal: Friday December 05 2003, @03:56AM)
The Spamhaus response is just a followup to the earlier story, and is an interesting insight into the fraudulent dishonest mindset of spammers by pointing out the falsehoods in the suit.
This whole issue is newsworthy because it calls attention to the overall deceptive sleaze of spam in general, it is NOT a legitimate business. While the racketeering story posted earlier isn't quite the right solution, I do think that if the courts are made more aware of the shady (and sometimes outright illegal) business practices of spammers, more anti-spam suits will be won and more anti-spam laws will be passed. Spam is a crime that just hasn't been made illegal yet.
Re:UK in American courts? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:UK in American courts? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not at all obvious.
We are coming to a point in history where US law is converging to global law. Military might talks. Mind you, it doesn't work the other way.
The spam assholes of America are some of the least dangerous assholes though. The US is brim full of more dangerous assholes.
Re:UK in American courts? (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't. That's why the plaintiff had to lie about the Spamhaus' and Steve Linford's whereabouts, about US residents being principals in Spamhaus, and to falsely suggest that it might have a US office. Otherwise the suit would be thrown out at as soon as it landed on a judge's desk.
i'm getting some bonus points ... (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday December 02 2006, @04:02AM)
Re:i'm getting some bonus points ... (Score:5, Funny)
These guys have no shame (Score:5, Funny)
Everyone hates spam... and that includes e-mail marketers.
Gee, I'd say, I wouldn't want to eat my own crap
Re:These guys have no shame (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.troz.com/)
Billion dollar industry... blah, blah, freakin' blah. Prove the damned numbers. Unlike RIAA and MPAA, no one is going to let spammers make up their own balance sheets. There are numerous reports world wide giving hard proof of the costs brought about by all the stupid spammers. The only people who stand to be finacially injured and unemployed (and unemployable after a background check) are the asses sending all the spam.
I'll see their billions and raise by trillions -- the costs of software development and administrator headaches addressing the problem of spam, software development and administrative overhead to block loopholes in internet protocols, ever increasing server and bandwidth needs to move, process, and store all this crap... SPAM is a very expensive problem with the burden everywhere but the spammer.
Laws are useless unless swiftly and strictly enforced. Speeding is illegal, but that hasn't made much of a dent.
Re:These guys have no shame (Score:5, Funny)
(http://hazy.stupor.org/)
Hide in Europe? What evidence to they have that the anti-spammers are hiding? What would it matter if they hide in the EU and not the US?
Last time I checked it wasn't the anti-spammers that needed to hide....
Obligatory Google Cache (Score:5, Informative)
No ground (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://members.cox.net/bungi/)
Talk about clueless and groundless.
Re:No ground (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday March 27 2002, @09:26PM)
Groundless, yes. Clueless, I don't think so. They are simply playing dumb and hoping to stir the hive to get some honey (wich might very well end in them getting stung).
Some believe that thieves are the best security advisors. This guy probably knows all about spam and anti-spamming methods, and if he doesn't, he probably has a tech person who does.
And if, as a lawyer, he seriously expect this lawsuit to prosper, he is even more incompetent than Lionel Hutz (yes, this is a gratuitous Simpsons reference).
Re:No ground (Score:5, Informative)
(http://hamfisted.net/)
Yet Another Solution to Spam (Score:3, Interesting)
Since it's impossible to verify the actual sender of any email, we need to be stricter about validating the server who sent it (most recently). AOL and MSN and the large corporations will eventually ban all email not coming from a small (< 100 domains) set of 'trusted hosts'. This will hurt small companies and small ISPs; the answer is that they will have to route their mail through a trusted host (or through someone else, who in turn...). These trusted hosts will become something like (and possibly run by) Verisign and other CAs. The small senders will have to pay for the authentication the trusted host provides (which they will pass on to their customers). This is already something like what ISPs do, when they refuse to forward SMTP mail except from their own block of IP addresses.
If a trusted host allows spam to be sent through it (on a large enough scale), then it is in danger of losing its 'trusted' status. Unless of course, it acknowledges its spammy status and pays (bribes?) the other trusted hosts to allow it to remain. The end result will be that spammers will have to pay (considerably) for the privilege of sending spam through a trusted host. Normal users will have to pay (a small amount) for the privilege of sending non-spam through a trusted host.
This isn't a radical idea, it's simply whitelists taken to their logical, structured conclusion.
Text of the site, part 1 (Score:3, Informative)
The Spamhaus Project, London, UK
Answer to Case Number 03-80295
Filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Florida by EMarketersAmerica.org (aka Mark E. Felstein) on behalf of anonymous senders of Unsolicited Bulk Email ("Spam").
The Spamhaus Project receives a great many threats of legal action from senders of Unsolicited Bulk Email (aka "spammers"). The cases attempted to-date have either never been accepted by a lawyer for filing or have been thrown out by the courts as being without merit.
Lawsuit 03-80295, filed by an anonymous group calling itself EMarketersAmerica.org (registered only 4 weeks ago to one Mark Felstein, the same lawyer who filed this case... i.e: the Plaintiff is the lawyer), is a SLAPP suit intended to harass those named. With regards to Spamhaus, the suit seeks an injunction to stop Spamhaus from publishing the IP addresses of the anonymous entity the Plaintiff represents on the Spamhaus Block List ("SBL"), an IP Preference List used freely and voluntarily by 140 Million Internet users to reject incoming spam emails from confirmed spam senders. The Plaintiff clearly believes he has a right to force SBL users to receive his spam. Spamhaus categorically rejects the argument that any Sender has a right to force the users of our SBL system to receive unsolicited bulk email messages.
The lawsuit requests an answer. The following is the answer of Spamhaus director Steve Linford on behalf of The Spamhaus Project:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
I . Plaintiff, EMARKETERSAMERICA.ORG, INC., (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "EMARKETERS"), is a Florida Non Profit Corporation with its principal place of business in PALM BEACH County, Florida. EMARKETERS' membership base consists of email marketers, internet services providers domiciled in and throughout Florida, and other related businesses, which operate their businesses throughout the United States and the World.
2. Defendant, SPEWS.ORG d/b/a THE HERMES GROUP (hereinafter referred to as "SPEWS"), is a United States of America based entity, which operates
a blacklist of other's Internet Protocol addresses. Additionally, SPEWS and its principals sell products which block the electronic transmission and Internet communications of American citizens and businesses. SPEWS
posts on the Internet and intentionally delivers information in its express efforts to interrupt and block the internet traffic of lawful
businesses and individuals. SPAMHAUS maintains a list of other's Internet Protocol addresses and servers. SPEWS operates and conducts its
activities through the Internet at www.SPEWS.org. Plaintiff is informed and believes that SPEWS has two offices located in California and one in Illinois.
3. Defendant, SPAMHAUS.ORG d/b/a THE SPAMHAUS PROJECT (hereinafter referred to as "SPAMHAUS"), is a United Kingdom based entity, which operates a blacklist of other's Internet Protocol addresses.
Specifically, Spamhaus operates the Spamhaus Block List ("SBL"), a DNS-published advisory list of IP addresses of confirmed junk email senders, known as the SBL Advisory, which allows SBL users to reject incoming spam emails.
Additionally, SPAMHAUS and its principals sell products which block the electronic transmission and communications of American citizens and
businesses.
Spamhaus does not sell any product whatsoever and never has sold any product. The SBL is published free of charge and does not block the transmission of email, it specifically blocks the receipt of junk email by computers belonging to SBL users.
SPAMHAUS posts on the Internet and intentionally delivers information in its express efforts to interrupt and block the Internet traffic of lawful businesses and individuals.
Mirror! (Score:5, Informative)
(http://205.205.253.95/Crackster | Last Journal: Wednesday September 22 2004, @09:57PM)
Can anyone answer me this? (Score:5, Interesting)
How can spammers sue anti-spam list maintainers? RBLs are purely voluntary. Companies/ISPs aren't forced by law to use RBLs. They implement RBLs out of their own volition (hopefully after doing a bit of research of the RBL in question).
I can see a point of a non-spammer is accidentaly added to the list and the RBL company refuses to remove the 'offending' company. But in this case, these are known spammers. They don't deny that they send out spam. It just doesn't make any sense. The spammers should be charged with wasting the court's time.
Re:Can anyone answer me this? (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact that admins of domains can then use that information to allow their mailserver(s) to allow/reject mail from those domains is a separate matter.
There are then services, like Brightmail, which provide filtered email services to end users or ISPs. Brightmail's website will provide you with details on what they use for filtering, be it SPEWS, SBL, something else, or (most likely) a combination of all of the above.)
At any rate, organizations like SPEWS and SBL only provide the data. They do not implement it. As an ISP, your only legal recourse for being blocked due to a listing would be to go after each individual ISP that is blocking you. Even then, unless you had a contract with that ISP saying they MUST accept all mail from your domain, there's not a whole lot you can do. Laws vary from place to place, but the concept of "private property" seems pretty universal - and that's what every domain, and ISP network is - PRIVATE PROPERTY. No domain anywhere is *required* to accept mail from all of the internet.
Most lists provide documentation on their listing and delisting policies. This is both for admins wishing to use the list (do they agree with the criteria), as well as for admins wondering what happend to get them listed in the first place.
As for your employer's situation, getting onto a list usually occurs for the following reasons:
* Signing up of a spammer who's so infamous, that he and the poor sucker of an ISP that signed him up are immediatly blocked as a preventative measure. (ie. it's not a matter of IF he'll spam...)
* Preceived slack/slowness/cluelessness of your employer's abuse desk. This doesn't mean you have to have your abuse desk write personal responses to each and every person who sends a complaint...just have them do their job, and eliminate your misbehaving customer.
No reasonable person is going to expect instantaneous action, either. I think 2-3 days (TOPS) should be enough to deal with most cases, even with a 1% spammer infestation. Again, most people aren't going to expect a personal reply. Not getting the same spam from your customer is usually good enough. (and will keep you off the lists!)
Finally, you might want to look into proactively discouraging spammers from signing up by creating a new clause in your customers' contracts stating that if the account is terminated due to spam, you will charge the customer a clean up fee (usually $500-$2000.) ISPs that have enacted such a clause see the spam emanating from them drop off quickly - and hey, if someone is STILL stupid enough to spam, use the money to throw a beer bust.
Seriously though, if your abuse desk does their job in a timely manner, you shouldn't have any problems with listing services.
Re:Can anyone answer me this? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://baby.boondock.org/ | Last Journal: Friday August 04 2006, @11:41AM)
In the US, you can file a suit for anything. You risk countersuit and charges for frivolous lawsuits for filing blatantly false and harrassing lawsuits, which is what happened in this case.
EMarketersAmerica.org claims in their suit, among other things, that:
- Spamhaus and SPEWS are run by the same people.
- Steve Linford's brother, who lives in Italy and knows nothing about Spamhaus, is one of those people running both sites.
- Spamhaus has an office in the US.
- Spamhaus sells products.
- Spamhaus' products "destroy" and "intercept" legitimate email transmissions.
- Spamhaus has *appropriated* IPs belonging to EMarketersAmerica member organizations for their own use and profit. (Tell me, how on Earth do you do that? I want to steal MS's block...)
They make many other false statements, but those are the doozies.
These are people who make their living by digitally date-raping whoever they can find. (And, yes, I use that word... please, I get emails about enlarging my member on a daily basis, and I'm a WOMAN, for crying out loud. At least send me breast enlargement ads instead.) They have no compunction about breaking more laws by filing a frivolous and false lawsuit in hopes that it will scare someone off.
The good news is, Steve Linford, if he has the time and money to do so, now has an excellent countersuit, which could make a lot of those spammer's documents public record. Big ifs, but stranger things have happened.
Is he filing one? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think that not only the defendants of the case should countersue but that those who use the SBL and those who are protected by the SBL should join the suit (as a class action) against the negative effects that could be caused by hindering Spamhaus's work. I also think that anyone who owns part of this corporation should be named as a defendant in the suit. Clearly the corporation is an attempt to hide the actual principals and protect the from liability. I'm not sure of the legal basis, but I think that that protection should be voided by their active participation.
Hopefully the discovery phase will dig up some of their actual illegal behavior (forging headers, hacking boxes to send email from them), so that the courts can prosecute them. It would be great if it could be proved that some of the product distributors who benefit from this advertising could be shown to have actively participated as well. Cut off the funding for spam.
Seriously, if some lawyer wanted to take this task on, I (and many others, I'm sure) would be happy to help with the preparation of requests for useful data and interpretation of the data once it is received. Just post a response here and I will be happy to post one of my spamcatcher accounts. Just give me an idea of what the email will look like so that I don't accidentally delete it with my spam...
Sue for anything (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
You should be allowed to sue for anything.
Who should judge what is worthy? A judge of course, nobody else should be allowed to make the decision if the case should proceed.
I don't see a better solution.
Re:Sue for anything (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://baby.boondock.org/ | Last Journal: Friday August 04 2006, @11:41AM)
You should be allowed to sue for anything.
Who should judge what is worthy? A judge of course, nobody else should be allowed to make the decision if the case should proceed.
I don't see a better solution.
An excellent point, really. The problem is, it depends on a certain threshold amount of personal ethics and judgement, which we seem to have slowly sloughed off here in the US. You should be *able* to sue for anything, but you should not automatically come up with a lawsuit every time the world inconveniences you or takes away your favorite toy. Unfortunately, our legal system runs on dollars, not sense. It's not corrupt, really; it's just big and complicated (like a Hummer?), and the people who can give it enough fuel to get mileage out of it are those with lots of cash (yeah, like a Hummer). Meanwhile, there's thousands of "reasonable" lawsuits every day that never get as far as a filing, because people don't have the time and/or money to deal with it.
There's a lawyer in Downtown Los Angeles named Nancy Mintie, who has been practicing for 24 years. She has never lost a case. Seems amazing on the face of it... but on a closer look, she does nothing but pro bono legal services for homeless and poor people. There are so many people down there who are being horribly exploited and abused, so there's tons of very solid cases to work with. You walk into a court room and tell them that a landlord has to do something about kids getting chewed on by rats in their sleep, you don't have much trouble at all. It's the big bucks lawsuits that are touch-and-go, because they often don't have a solid foundation to rest on.
I've been trying to come up with a better solution, but really, how could you feasibly socialize the legal system? Universal Health Care is a cinch in comparison. After all, if the guy across the street has a better doctor than me, it doesn't mean he can take years away from my life. But if he's got a better lawyer, he can sue me for all I'm worth, and it may not matter if he has a better case than I do... as long as he has better representation.
Douglas Adams once described litigation... (Score:4, Funny)
(http://yoz.com/)
You put all of your money into a big pile. Your opponent puts all of his/her money into another big pile. Then the lawyers come along and start tearing up the money piles. Whichever lawyer finishes first loses.
-- Yoz
Your mission, should you choose to accept it: (Score:5, Funny)
555 South Federal Highway, Suite 450
Boca Raton, FL 33432
561-367-7990
mfels@aol.com
You know what to do!
Why bother with the small fish? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://csguy.blogspot.com/)
Wrong phone number (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Tuesday March 14 2006, @12:31PM)
Yvonne K Kemeny, (561) 997-9008, 4601 NW Boca Raton Blvd, Boca Raton, FL 33431
Either you've mistyped the number or you're playing some sort of game. Moderators -- stuff like this should be checked out first.
Discovery! Yeah! (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 05 2006, @05:31AM)
-jcr
Re:Discovery! Yeah! (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday March 02 2005, @11:08PM)
Spamhaus isn't a US entity, and Steve Linford isn't a US resident, and it's highly likely that the court has no jurisdiction over his actions, so it may be much cleaner for him to say "no thanks" and not be part of the suit. That means he may not get to play the Discovery game (or at least he'd need a real lawyer rather than me advising him.) But any of the US-based defendants certainly can go file discovery motions as part of their response, even if the result of them is to demonstrate that they're not part of the suit or that they didn't do the actions they're accused of or that those actions aren't a tort.
You can have *so* much fun with discovery in this - not only should they be able to get the names and real addresses and phone numbers of all the spammers that the plaintiff alleges are part of his organization, but also
- all the IP addresses and domain names the spammers own or use and
- copies of all the ISP contracts the plaintiff alleges to have, or that the plaintiff's spammer buddies allege to have, and
- any other ISP contracts that they have which the plaintiff is *not* alleging were blocked, because that obviously indicates something relevant, and
- exactly what hardware and software and which ISP connections were used to deliver the spam that was allegedly blocked, and what recordkeeping capabilities it has, and
- any records they have about the dates and times and recipients that they attempted to deliver messages to which were blocked, and
- how they determined that the recipients use SBL as instead of or in addition to other blocking lists, and
- why they assert that SBL was actually used to block their spam as opposed to some other list, and
- the contents of those messages, and
- who if anyone had hired them to deliver the messages, and all their names and addresses,
- or if the spammers were trying to sell the products themselves, exactly what those products were (Ajax Model 28 Penis Expander), or if they were medical products, whether they met all legal requirements for selling them, e.g. Viagra,
- or if the spammers were promoting web pages with their spam, exactly which web pages and who paid them to promote them, and
- where they obtained the addresses of the recipients they were spamming, and
- whether the information was delivered directly by the spammers, or by using open relays and/or open proxies, and their IP addresses, and whom they obtained permission from to use each of those, and how they located them, and
- precise cost accounting data used to calculate the alleged damages, especially because the spammer alleges, probably correctly, that they're high enough to trigger some jurisdictional or procedural effects under Florida law,
and any other information you can think of that the spammers would probably rather NOT have exposed to public view. And be sure to get all of them in electronic form, and delivered to all the defendants, because even if Steve Linford and Spamhaus aren't under US or Florida jurisdiction, they're certainly parties to the case, and it'd be a real shame if there were no particular way to impose confidentiality rules on the non-US defendants for use of that data.Yeah, it seems like a lot of data. But the plaintiff's suit doesn't just claim something fuzzy like libel (where he might have had a chance suing in the UK, though probably less likely here) or restraint of trade, it claims that the defendants engaged in activities that caused damages to the plaintiff by interfering with the plaintiff's legitimate activities, and that means that the actual activities that the plaintiff claims to have engaged in and the defendant's actions which allegedly i
You Forgot The Most Important Thing To Obtain! (Score:4, Interesting)
That way, the people who own the email addresses on the list can be asked if they had opted in (EMarkerters did state that they ran an opt-in scheme only...)
Steve.
Interesting Language on Spammers' Part (Score:3, Informative)
(Last Journal: Saturday October 27, @04:36PM)
The list is just that, a list. What people do or not do with the list is up to the person whose decision it is to implement it. So if the recipient is using the list to avoid email advertisements, doesn't that kinda call into question whether or not the spammers really did have "permission" to begin with?
Perhaps if businesses and the courts didn't define "permission" as "not actively signing up for the opt-out list," we wouldn't be having such problems.
Make your feelings known.... (Score:5, Informative)
FELSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Attorneys for EMarketersAmerica.org, Inc.
555 South Federal Highway, Suite 450
Boca Raton, Florida 33432
(561) 367-7990 Phone
(561) 367-7980 Facsimile
mark~ EMarketersAmerica.org
BY
Mark E. Felstein, Esq.
FBN: 192139
Re:Make your feelings known.... (Score:4, Informative)
Mark Edward Felstein
102 NE 2nd St # 200
Boca Raton Florida 33432-3967
Phone: 561/367-7980
respectively interpret differently (Score:5, Informative)
Support the defendants! Donate money to legal fund (Score:5, Informative)
The SpamCon Foundation [spamcon.org] has set up a legal fund [spamcon.org] to aid spamfighters that need legal assistance.
The defendants of this particular EMarketersAmerica suit also benefit from and endorse [google.com] this fund.
Tactical mistake - Description of SBL (Score:3, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Wednesday March 02 2005, @11:08PM)
Steve's response is very clear on the point that the SBL doesn't block the transmission of any messages, but he's fuzzy on whether it blocks the reception - in some places he says it does, while in other places he talks about the recipient blocking them. I thought that the SBL is implemented in a way that the user's email software does the blocking, after checking the site's status with the SBL. It's a potentially important difference - not so much for Steve or Spamhaus (because of the jurisdictional issues) but for the US plaintiffs. It shouldn't be - the recipient has every right to hire a blocking service to block spam for them, even if the one they've chosen to use charges no money - but it could make a difference to a jury or to a really clueless judge.
Re:Spammers are suing the wrong people (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.flipforit.net/ | Last Journal: Monday March 06 2006, @07:48AM)
Then again, making such a defense might endanger the "common carrier" claim that a lot of ISPs make to avoid legal liability for what goes on on their network.
At any rate, as long as spam-blocking is an optional service offered to users, then the receivers can be responsible for rejecting the mail, and I can't imagine even the current US courts ruling that consumers are required to accept unwanted commercial spew (unless of course its in the context of some otherwise offered service such as ad-supported free email accounts).
Re:Spam vs. Commercial Email (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 05 2006, @05:31AM)
Let's be very clear on this. Your first statement is correct. Your second statement, however, seems to claim that it's not spam if the remove address works, which is 100% bullshit.
-jcr
Re:Spam vs. Commercial Email (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.cs.utah.edu/~andersbr/)
But how are you, the consumer, supposed to tell if one of your "white hats" is actually one of Yahoo's "marketing partners?" Seriously, every spam I get comes with a disclaimer that says I "opted in." I remember one especially infuriating one that listed about a dozen different ways to opt in, and at least half of them were so vague as to make it impossible to say, "no I didn't."
My philosophy is, if I'm not absolutely sure I signed up for something, then kill them all. Let
For what is worth... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.plateaultd.com/)
PING emarketersamerica.org (64.70.171.85)
whois 64.70.171.85@whois.arin.net
[whois.arin.net]
OrgName: CyberGate, Inc.
OrgID: CYBG
Address: 3250 W. Commercial Blvd. Suite 200
City: Ft. Lauderdale
StateProv: FL
PostalCode: 33309
Country: US
NetRange: 64.70.128.0 - 64.70.255.255
CIDR: 64.70.128.0/17
NetName: CYBERGATE-1
NetHandle: NET-64-70-128-0-1
Parent: NET-64-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS.VALUEWEB.NET
NameServer: NS2.VALUEWEB.NET
Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
RegDate: 2000-04-03
Updated: 2000-11-28
TechHandle: CN313-ARIN
TechName: Network Administrator, CyberGate Network
TechPhone: +1-954-334-8080
TechEmail: netadm@valueweb.net
Spamhaus might lose (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/~cyranoVR/journal/139343 | Last Journal: Wednesday October 31, @09:08PM)
Unfortunately, many court cases are more about who has deeper pockets than who is right...so if Spamhaus doesn't get this court case dismissed immediately, they could be in big trouble.
If they DO go to court, they run the risk of ending up with one of those old, crusty judges - the kind that has never actually used a computer, having his(or her) secretary print out his email every day instead. In which case the proceedings could drag on and on...and Spamahaus would probably be SCREWED.
The Attorney is a kid (Score:5, Informative)
(http://clintonhawk.net/)
Too bad he's going down such a low path so soon in his carear.
My favorite line... (Score:3, Funny)
Two questions (Score:3, Funny)
1. Now that his address has been posted to Slashdot, how much snail mail do you think Mr. Feldstein is going to get next week?
2. Does anyone else think it's a coincidence that the site that comes up first when you google for "free catalog" (cabelas.com) is running rather slowly right now?:)
Not Pro-Spam, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://jwsmythe.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday September 08, @03:38PM)
$RANT_MODE="ON";
I also handle many networks, with many many machines. Some of our networks have other people's equipment on it, but I'm 100% positive that they don't spam from their machines. Since they frequently ask me to help with their configurations, or help with problems, I'm intimately aware of what they do.
If there are spam complaints, they filter through to me very quickly. Level3's abuse account gets most of them. They filter out most of the bogus complaints, and are quick to get with us about legitimate complaints. We did have one machine hosted on one network that was spamming, which we ejected from the network shortly afterwards.
On a monthly basis, someone will come to me saying that they've been blacklisted by one of the many lists for ambiguous reasons. Any incident that is legitimate is cleared up between us and our bandwidth provider, under the threat of having the IP or IP block blocked from all Internet access. Level3 Communications is very anti-spam. They'll cut you off for being a spammer. If we don't explain or handle an incident, we could very easily loose our lines. I have no problem with this.
The last case with Level3 was a single spam complaint, sent through SpamCop. The message wasn't a spam at all. Someone had made a purchase online with an invalid credit card number. The Email simply stated that they had attempted a purchase (with IP and invoice number), and said if they still intended to make the purchase, they should contact the sales department at the store. I know the owner of the store personally, so I called him. He freaked out when I told him there was a spam complaint. This is a business man [fetish-factory.com] who is the most honest person I know. (If in Ft. Lauderdale, tell Glenn I say "hi"). I read the Email to him, and he confirmed that it was a legitimate message, and the card had been bad.. He immediately cancelled the order, and blacklisted the customer. The next day I got a forwarded Email which was an apology from the customer. She sends every Email off to SpamCop, and lets them sort them out. Nice, huh?
Now on to the abuses of the spews system. SpamHaus is
65.59.224.0/25 [spews.org] is one of our networks. A small backwater of our network. A few older machines live there, and not much happens. SPEWS has 65.59.224.0/24 blacklisted, as well as 66.166.136.128/24 which is no relationship to us (the wrong network size is theirs, not ours). Because I have machines on the first half of 65.59.224.0/25, I'm blacklisted. 65.59.224.128/25 could be blacklisted, but I happen to know that they have quite a few hosting customers, most of who know nothing about the other customers.. Legitimately blacklisted??
ORDB [ordb.org] has my ex-girlfriend's mail server listed. She develops and hosts sites. No spamming at all.
65.59.224.11 [spews.org] is listed as herbalo.com. Funny thing is, it doesn't exist on our network.. I'll personally escort anyone from spews into the colo to prove it to them.. Oh wait, I forgot, these are anonymous people who don't exist in the real world and don't feel themselves accountable for blacklisting innocent networks.
AOL has blocked one of my own servers, as well as those of two different friends (on their own networks) for "potential spam".. One of them had a *WEB* proxy server, and aparently because it existed (on port 8000), he was blacklisted from sending
By all means.... (Score:3, Funny)
(http://www.somethingpositive.net/ | Last Journal: Monday November 24 2003, @01:20PM)
Plaintiff, EMARKETERSAMERICA.ORG, INC. hereby makes a demand for a jury trial of all counts so triable.
Sweet, these morons *want* a jury trial.
Jury: "Your honor, we find the defendant SpamHaus et al. innocent on all charges, and furthermore recommend the public castration and/or execution of the plantiff & all it's members.
Judge: "Sounds good to me."
Jaysyn