Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Judge Rules In Favor Of Spamhaus

Posted by Zonk on Sat Oct 21, 2006 11:45 PM
from the yay-spam-for-everybody-wait dept.
Government Spam The Courts The Internet News
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.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Spamhaus Responds To Spammers' Lawsuit 464 comments
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."
[+] IT: Spamhaus to Ignore $11.7M Judgement 471 comments
6031769 writes, "As reported on CNet, Spamhaus is choosing to ignore a judgement of $11.7M against them in an uncontested trial in an Illinois court. According to Spamhaus, the judgement has no impact on them, since they are a British organization." From the Spamhaus reply to the judgment: "Default judgments obtained in US county, state or federal courts have no validity in the UK and can not be enforced under the British legal system... As spamming is illegal in the UK, an Illinois court ordering a British organization to stop blocking incoming Illinois spam in Britain goes contrary to UK law which orders all spammers to cease sending spam in the first place."
[+] Perspectives on Spamhaus's Dilemma 420 comments
The Illinois court that told Spamhaus to stop blocking the spammer filing suit against them — an order which Spamhaus ignored — is now considering ordering ICANN to pull Spamhaus's domain records. While Gadi Evron, whose blog posting is linked above, urges everyone to beat the judge with a clue stick, a guest writer on his blog counsels much greater restraint. Anti-spam lawyer Matthew Prince explains how Spamhaus got into its current pickle — apparently by following conflicting legal advice at two points in the process — and what they might have to do to get out. One spamfighter of my acquaintance says that Spamhaus's SBL and XBL blocklists knock out 75% of the spam at his servers before it hits and requires more CPU-intensive filtering. If ICANN is ordered to unplug Spamhaus from the DNS, and does so, is the Net prepared to deal with a 4-fold increase in spam hitting MTAs overnight?
[+] IT: One Last Spamhaus Warning Before The End 632 comments
kog777 writes to mention that Spamhaus has released a final warning about an increase in junk email, as they prepare to lose their domain to an Illinois court ruling. From the article: "According to Spamhaus, more than 650 million Internet users - including those at the White House, the U.S. Army and the European Parliament - benefit from Spamhaus' 'blacklist' of spammers that helps identify which messages to block, send to a 'junk' folder or accept. Losing the domain name would make it more difficult for service providers and others to obtain the lists. 'If the domain got suspended, it would be an enormous hit for the Net,' said Steve Linford, Spamhaus' chief executive officer. 'It would create an enormous amount of damage on the Internet.'"
[+] IT: ICANN Grants Temporary Reprieve to Spamhaus 271 comments
daringone writes "ICANN released a statement that says they "...cannot comply with any order requiring it to suspend or place a client hold on Spamhaus.org or any specific domain name" They do, however leave the door open for the registrar that registered the domain name to then be forced to turn the lights off for Spamhaus."
[+] IT: Judge In e360 Vs. Comcast Rules e360 a Spammer 156 comments
Brielle Bruns writes "Yesterday, Judge James B. Zagel dismissed claims against Comcast by e360. In the decision, the judge says: 'Plaintiff e360Insight, LLC is a marketer. It refers to itself as an Internet marketing company. Some, perhaps even a majority of people in this country, would call it a spammer.' This clears the path for Comcast's counter-suit." e360 is the spammer that got a default judgement against Spamhaus, as we have discussed on numerous occasions.
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.

Judge Rules In Favor Of Spamhaus 25 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Way to go down kicking and screaming inanities...

      • Re:"a devastating loss of personal freedom for..." (Score:5, Insightful)

        by BlogPope (886961) on Sunday October 22 2006, @01:30AM (#16533654)
        Well Spamhaus said their demise would be the end of the internet, so its basically kids in the play ground.

        Well, they are the ONLY Real Time Black list on the internet, which of course is the ONLY anti-spam measure available to mail admins, and I'm pretty sure email traffic volumes are orders of magnitude larger than other protocols, such as http & Bitorrent.

        So yeah, I agree with Slashdot in agreein with Spamhaus on the horros to be unleashed if this order had gone through.

  • Loss of personal freedom (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 21 2006, @11:52PM (#16533288)
    e360 Insight responded on its homepage, saying the judge's ruling was 'a devastating loss of personal freedom for all U.S. citizens'.

    It's true! Our constitutional right to not be able to get a dns lookup on spamhus.org has been torn away from us. Why oh why does Judge Kocoras hate us so much? :(

  • Finally common sense, thank you (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dindi (78034) on Saturday October 21 2006, @11:55PM (#16533300) Homepage
    Oh well, it is nice to see that over rules and regulations sometimes common sense and the people behind it does not get punished.

    All i have to say about it after seeing 568 messages today in my mailbox. Yes, 2 is a valid mail, the rest is buy viagra and get a college degree scam.

    cheers

  • Damned activist judges... (Score:5, Funny)

    by chill (34294) on Saturday October 21 2006, @11:58PM (#16533316) Homepage Journal
    ...making law from the bench! This one ruling for some fooreen company over a good-old, red, white and blue U.S. homegrown! How dare he! Probably a Democrat and communist, too.

    What?

    Spam? Yeah, it is good with a little cheese and...

    Oh, THAT stuff!? Those guys need to be publically whipped and castrated! There ought to be a law that protects decent citizens from all that perverted material arriving in your mailbox without asking. I mean, one visit to whitehouse.com, fill in one little form and give 'em one little credit card and all of a sudden I get this crap in my mailbox! What if my kid opens my email?

    Won't somebody please think of the children?

  • More at stake than just SPAM... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chabil Ha' (875116) on Sunday October 22 2006, @12:01AM (#16533324)
    I really think that the judge realized that more was at stake than just SPAM. It has set an important precedant regarding the Internet and jurisdiction. Even though the US controls most of it, it is important to realize that the Internet is an ethereal place without solid jurisdictional boundaries. If the judge had signed away on pulling the domain name, it would have casted a devastating taint on how Law treats 'where' the Interent exactly is.

    • Re:More at stake than just SPAM... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by EvilCowzGoMoo (781227) on Sunday October 22 2006, @12:06AM (#16533352) Journal
      Notice that the Judge did not overturn the $11.7 million default judgment, only the attempt to suspend the domain name. While this is a victory in that we won't suddenly get hit with 10x more spam tomarrow... Spamhaus is not off the hook yet. This is likely to be just the start of some potentialy very good, or very bad legislation.

      We live in interesting times.

  • Let's make one thing clear, the original judgment is of no value.

    Lindtard, e360 insight lawyer, actually LIED to the court by stating that Spamhaus did business in Illinois. This is patently false.

    Spamhaus has stated such to the judge, but the judge chose to ignore that advice and press forward with the case.

    Upon seeing that it would not be able to get heard by the court, Spamhaus wisely decided to withdraw completely. Being based in Britain, Spamhaus would not be bound by any judgment that would arise, and since the court chose to be bamboozled by the chickenboning spammers, the judgment rendered would be of no value anyways.

    The judge ruled in favour of the plaintiff by default, but such a judgment is ineffective as US judgments do not apply to the UK.

    The case redux came about when chickenboning Lindtard drew an amazingly broad order that the judge refused to enterinate, as being "far too broad in regard to the violation effected".

    However, given the potential disruption if Spamhaus.org would be suspended, a prominent Chicago law firm has offered it's services pro-bono.

    So we can expect the chickenboning Lindtard's gang of e360 insight to have their gonads flattenned pretty quick by the court pretty soon (if not by Angel's Anvil Delivery Service)...

    Let this be a warning to spammers: YOU CHICKENBONERS CANNOT EXPECT TO WIN, AND AS PEOPLE ARE GETTING MORE AND MORE TIRED OF YOUR SHENANIGANS, YOU CAN BE EXPECTED TO BE HUNTED AND SEE YOUR SPAMMING OPERATIONS KILLED PRETTY MUCH EFFECTIVELY.

    • Re:The straight dope (Score:5, Informative)

      by nuzak (959558) on Sunday October 22 2006, @12:40AM (#16533464) Journal
      > Lindtard, e360 insight lawyer

      Dave Linhardt is e360. It's a one-man shop. Just another ranting chickenboner -- you should have seen him carry on on NANAE. I can't wait to see him try to collect his precious judgement in a UK court.

      • Re:The straight dope (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JustNiz (692889) on Sunday October 22 2006, @12:33AM (#16533440)
        If the US started doing that, it wouldn't take long before the rest of the world stopped using ICANN's top-level domain, and effectively put the whole US on a subnet of some even higher level non-US domain.

      • Re:The straight dope (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2006, @12:45AM (#16533492)
        Actually, if the judge had ordered ICANN (an American corporation) to pull the plug on the domain, it most definitely would have affected them, regardless of the physical jurisdiction of the court.

        Actually, even if the judge ordered ICANN to suspend their domain, ICANN would not be able to comply, because it is not within ICANN's power to do so.

        The judge could order the registrar to pull the domain though.

        The amount of power the US could potentially have over the Internet is rather frightening

        The US has minimal power over the internet. The internet is a set of standards for computer networks. The US has some power over some domain names because the companies that manage these domain names are located in the US.

        And should the US abuse its position, I'm sure other countries will compensate. Why does ICANN have such power? Because internet users say that they do. Why are the DNS roots authoritative? Because internet users say that they are. Should a critical mass of internet users disagree, then they lose this power.

        Despite all the bitching about ICANN, generally speaking, they do a decent job. Certainly far better than the UN/ITU proposals to bring it under the control of the dictator's debating club on the east river.
  • http://www.e360insight.com/index.html [e360insight.com]

    You will notice that, at the bottom of the page, there is a contact us type button.

    I think we've all learned something important here today.

  • Ruling against Spamhaus still stands... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Frosty Piss (770223) on Sunday October 22 2006, @12:16AM (#16533380)
    The judge denied e360insight's motion to suspend the Spamhaus domain, but that doesn't mean the original ruling against Spamhaus was vacated. As far as I can tell, that still stands.

    • Re:Ruling against Spamhaus still stands... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2006, @12:59AM (#16533540)
      The judge denied e360insight's motion to suspend the Spamhaus domain, but that doesn't mean the original ruling against Spamhaus was vacated. As far as I can tell, that still stands.

      Yes, they got a judgment against Spamhaus. Judgments are meaningless if they aren't enforceable. Good luck enforcing it in the USA, since Spamhaus does not do business in the USA and has no assets in the USA to seize.

      While some foreign judgments are enforceable in the UK, e360insight will have to go to a UK court and explain why their default judgment is valid, and why US law applies to a UK company which does no business in the USA. And since they're now in the UK, e360insight will have to explain why they are violating UK law relating to spam.

      Highly unlikely to be enforced.

  • Update on botnet spammer (Score:5, Informative)

    by Animats (122034) on Sunday October 22 2006, @12:31AM (#16533430) Homepage

    Marginally irrelevant, but good news on spam: Update on Jeanson James Ancheta, botnet spammer. [slashdot.org] The short version: he's now Federal inmate number 32392-112 at the California City Correctional Institution.

  • If you are a reporter working on a deadline, you can call our media relations department at (772) 971-4816. Select the option to have us paged if you need to reach us immediately.

    Anyone hooked on meth tonight and feel like making a few phone calls?

    • Re:Go to the source (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Gorshkov (932507) <{gorshkov} {at} {oghma.on.ca}> on Sunday October 22 2006, @12:30AM (#16533422)
      Please, for the sake of fairness, please go to the e360insight website Read for yourself what they have to say. Consider it carefully, go back later to gain additional insights. (Heh, I said insights.)

      Un-bloody-real .... I went and visited the poor benighted spammers. I couldn't resist the urge - I clicked on the "contact us" link. ANd what's the first thing it did? They wanted my EMAIL address.

      Well, they can contact me at dream-freaking@on.com - that's the one I gave when I posted the following comment to what they had on the link supplied:

      First - if you think I'm going to give a spammer my email address, you're sadly mistaken.

      Second - spamhaus, as you very well know, doesn't block a damned thing - individual mail admins - like ME - decide ON OUR OWN if we want to take their recommendations or not.

      And before you get pissy about a UK organisation ignoring a USA court, just thank god that they have, and that they CAN - becuase otherwise you'd be hauled to court in every country that had decent anti-spam legislation.

      And I'm pretty sure that you'd consider THAT to be an affront to the liberties of every red-blooded american as well, wouldn't you?

      • Re:Go to the source (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tim C (15259) on Sunday October 22 2006, @07:16AM (#16535336)
        I clicked on the "contact us" link. ANd what's the first thing it did? They wanted my EMAIL address.

        Well, yeah; presumably they think you want to contact them so as to set up a dialogue with them, not a monologue. They may be stupid, no good lowlife spamming shits, but expecting an email address as part of a contact form is perfectly reasonable. (Not that I'd give them mine, of course, but that's beside the point)

        Well, they can contact me at dream-freaking@on.com

        This was one of my biggest pet hates a couple of years ago - people using syntactically-legal addresses on real domains that are nothing to do with them. Same goes for the guy who used an address at yeahright.com, which is also a registered domain.

        What if that's an actual, valid email address and you've just condemned some poor schmuck to even more spam? If you wouldn't trust a site with your own email address, don't trust it with a potentially valid one either; use a "fake but possible" tld (such as .tld, .ab.cd, etc) instead.

      • Re:Go to the source (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2006, @12:22AM (#16533402)
        Oh please, for the love of God, I plead with you not to abuse the internet resources of e360insight [e360insight.com]. These good people are concerned about YOUR personal freedom, which you'd know if you went to their webpage to read their material. Please don't flood their contact page [e360insight.com] with insults and don't post random email addresses [mailto]. I don't want people to put a huge loan on their web server -- I simply want each and every person at Slashdot to make up their own mind, based on their own exploration the information on their website [e360insight.com]

        • Re:Go to the source (Score:5, Insightful)

          by tomhudson (43916) <hudson.videotron@ca> on Sunday October 22 2006, @12:33AM (#16533438) Journal
          Just a quick note ... their contact form script requires a valid email address. Why not use nospam@360insight.com ... or admin@360insight.com, etc.

          • Re:Go to the source (Score:5, Funny)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 22 2006, @12:46AM (#16533496)
            Please, oh please! In the memory of my dear departed Aunt Myrtle please don't abuse their contact page! If you want to provide them with insightful (heh, I said insightful again) commentary, it is only reasonable to provide them with a real email address so they can reply! Using a random fake email address [robietherobot.com] when you contact [e360insight.com] them would just be wrong. These freedom loving people are fighting for your rights!

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.