Spamhaus to Ignore $11.7M Judgement

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."

wow

I love how you can just ignore a multimillion dollar judgement. It's their attitude that I find amusing - they really couldn't give a shit.

Re:wow

>It's their attitude that I find amusing - they really couldn't give a shit.

It's your attitude that I find amusing - They are preventing an illegal acting being commited in our country. Why should they give a shit?

I occasionally buy products from spammers

just to piss the elitist spam haters off. a side benefit is that I am now an incredible lover with a huge penis and I get great deals on real estate loans.

Re:wow

Google operate businesses in countries where they operate, so have to obey local laws as they can be punished. Services like spamhaus are not legally based in other countries so only have to obey their patron law.

Re:wow

So a spammer in the US is sending spam into the UK. It's illegal to spam there, so the US spammer is breaking UK law. Can the UK convict this spammer and bring them to justice? If the spammer ignored the conviction, would that be any different than Spamhaus?

Maybe spammers should also follow local laws in the foreign countries in which they spam^H^H^H^H^H operate.

Re:wow

RTFA, or the summary at least.

It's an Illinois STATE court. A state court can't impose their ruling on anyone that's not actually inside their state.

Re:wow

IANAL, but I believe the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution allows rulings and judgements to be imposed in other states.

IANAG (I Am Not A Geographer), but I believe the United Kingdom is not actually beholden to the US Constitution since (and this my come as a shock to some /. readers) the UK isn't actually a state within the US... I know... I know... shocking... isn't it?

meh... who needs good karma anyway :)

Re:wow

DEAR SIR,

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL

HAVING CONSULTED WITH MY COLLEAGUES AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION GATHERED FROM THE AMERICAN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO REQUEST FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE TO TRANSFER THE SUM OF $11,700,000.00 (ELEVEN MILLION, SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS) INTO YOUR ACCOUNTS. THE ABOVE SUM RESULTED FROM A JUDGEMENT AGAINST THE SPAM BLOCKING SERVICE SPAMHAUS, AS DETERMINED BY AN ILLONOIS COURT. THIS ACTION WAS HOWEVER INTENTIONAL AND SINCE THEN THE FUND HAS BEEN IN A SUSPENSE ACCOUNT AT THE CENTRAL BANK OF ENGLAND.

WE ARE NOW READY TO TRANSFER THE FUND OVERSEAS AND THAT IS WHERE YOU COME IN. IT IS IMPORTANT TO INFORM YOU THAT AS CIVIL SERVANTS, WE ARE FORBIDDEN TO OPERATE A FOREIGN ACCOUNT; THAT IS WHY WE REQUIRE YOUR ASSISTANCE. THE TOTAL SUM WILL BE SHARED AS FOLLOWS: 70% FOR US, 25% FOR YOU AND 5% FOR LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL EXPENSES INCIDENT TO THE TRANSFER.

THE TRANSFER IS RISK FREE ON BOTH SIDES. I AM AN ACCOUNTANT WITH THE NIGERIAN NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (NNPC). IF YOU FIND THIS PROPOSAL ACCEPTABLE, WE SHALL REQUIRE THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS:

(A) YOUR BANKER'S NAME, TELEPHONE, ACCOUNT AND FAX NUMBERS.

(B) YOUR PRIVATE TELEPHONE AND FAX NUMBERS -- FOR CONFIDENTIALITY AND EASY COMMUNICATION.

(C) YOUR LETTER-HEADED PAPER STAMPED AND SIGNED.

ALTERNATIVELY WE WILL FURNISH YOU WITH THE TEXT OF WHAT TO TYPE INTO YOUR LETTER-HEADED PAPER, ALONG WITH A BREAKDOWN EXPLAINING, COMPREHENSIVELY WHAT WE REQUIRE OF YOU. THE BUSINESS WILL TAKE US THIRTY (30) WORKING DAYS TO ACCOMPLISH.

PLEASE REPLY URGENTLY.

BEST REGARDS

Re:wow

And because you can't extradite someone to face civil charges anyway.

Re:wow

They are preventing an illegal acting being commited in our country. Why should they give a shit?

Now let's pretend that the plaintiff in the case wasn't a spam company with a stupid name, but instead is a regular user who gets put on the list by mistake. From what I've read about Spamhaus, they tend to "not give a shit" in that sort of situation either, which is unfortunate. A good example why vigilante justice isn't always a good thing.

An even more interesting quandry: What if a large, well-recognized organization with deep pockets gets put on the list by mistake in the same fashion? Any bets as to how long it would take before they get removed?

Re:wow

An even more interesting quandry: What if a large, well-recognized organization with deep pockets gets put on the list by mistake in the same fashion? Any bets as to how long it would take before they get removed?

My last employer was one of the ten largest banks in the world. Our outbound SMTP servers where blacklisted by a "dedicated group of spam fighters" providing a blacklist service - SPEWS. I'm not sure how Spamhaus works, but I can tell you the SPEWS admins did not care much for our plight. They were chasing a particular spammer and to eliminate the problem they blocked a whole freaking subnet owned by MCI - we just happened to have our IPs in that subnet. I found that in this case, the blacklist admins were lazy (for blocking a whole subnet) and non-responsive (poor contact information is provided and pleas for removal where large ignored or flamed - following their procedure of posting in a forum to get removed). The whole process can be VERY frustrating.

Our saving grace was advising those email customers to drop SPEWS which 100% of them where willing to do.

As for this case, even though the "victim" is based in the US it really comes down to where the "crime" took place - on individual email servers using the Spamhaus BL around the world. I'm sure SH would argue in UK court that they offer a list, they don't enforce it and the onus lies on email administrators wherever they might be.

Re:wow

You're confusing SPEWS and Spamhaus... Spamhaus goes out of their way to avoid listing innocent bystanders.

SPEWS is different, it's not intended to be a list of spammers, SPEWS is a list of spam-friendly networks, more of a way of managing a boycott on the basis that if you're buying service from a spam friendly ISP, you're enabling the ISP to stay in business, and therefore indirectly enabling spammers to continue their operations. By design, this catches non-spamming entities in the crossfire, in an attempt to encourage them to find a less spam-friendly provider.

Re:wow

Not a chance. Failing to reply to an incorrectly served, non-jurisdictional court order for a country that you don't operate in, by a Judge with no savvy at all and on a law that not only doesn't exist in the UK but which operates under the OPPOSITE principle (i.e. if you spam, that's illegal in itself)? They wouldn't even give it a second thought.

They'd probably use it AGAINST the people who were trying to sue Spamhaus - poor lawyering, scaremongering, trying to impose laws across international jurisdictions, playing judges off against one another etc.

Re:wow

Absolutely. There are cases in civil law where by *responding* in a certain way in a jurisdiction you actually are acknowledging the jurisdiction of that court.

My guess is their UK lawyer told them it was lower risk to just ignore the whole thing, default judgment and all, then to spend all the money on a US lawyer to contest the jurisdiction and run a chance that they could lose a real case.

Enforcement of US Judgments in the UK

First of all, it is not that difficult to enforce a US judgment in England especially since a 1983 decision, Israel Discount Bank v. Hadjipateras, allowed the enforcement of a US $10 million judgment.

Secondly, it must be established that the US Court had jurisdiction under not just U.S., but English law. Jurisdiction can be established if the defendant was physically present in the foreign country or carrying on business in the country "at a definite and reasonably permanent place". I think that English Courts should take the position that a url is a definite and reasonably permanent place.

Thirdly, England might not recognize a US judgement if it is against it's Public Policy. For example, multiple and punitive damages are considered to be contrary to public policy. So, if an English law says "no spam allowed" and an American law says "allow spam", English law trumps.

So, Spamhaus really has nothing to worry about. But the rationale it gave...was slightly confused.

First Spam!

Hey at least it's on topic

Good for Spamhaus

The right to block Spam is important. I hope their executives don't try going over to America any time soon though. If I worked for them I'd be pretty nervous about taking transatlantic flights.

Re:Good for Spamhaus

I'd be pretty nervous about taking transatlantic flights

Like everyone isn't already ;-)

Seriously though, it's a civil suit, not criminal. They can't be arrested, can they? Or would they be liable for Contempt of Court? Even then, would it be enforcable outside IL? Any lawyers here to answer this?

Jurisdiction

I am not a lawyer, but I am in law school. If I'm understanding my first-year class on civil procedure at all: exercising jurisdiction overseas is complicated, but if somone is in the U.S. (or even just flying over it), they're subject to U.S. jursidiction. In this particular case, the Full Faith and Credit clause would make the decision enforceable outside IL, as well. Note that none of these procedural questions are dependent on the merits or validity of the original decision, which is most certainly questionable in this instance... internet jurisdiction is by no means settled law.

What I don't know is what the possible penalty might be for ignoring a settlement like this. Other foreigners in similar situations are usually arrested on criminal charges, at least in the cases I am aware of.

Heh... and I guess now I get to say it for the first time. "I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice." After ten years in IT, I have to say, that felt really weird.

Re:Good for Spamhaus

Or to look at it another way.

American spammer files a nuisance lawsuit British company in Illinois for blocking spam

British company is forced to spend a fortune hiring relevant lawyers and defending itself against a lawsuit without any merit. Spamhaus also have to spend another fortune ensuring that it complies with other regions laws

Spamhaus decide that it is easier to remove spammer from list. Other spammers follow suit and Spamhaus suddenly isn't blocking all that much spam.

Alternatively Spamhaus say that since they are operating in England they should be sued under British law. They ignore the judgement and the FUD attacks and keep doing everything their own way.

The spanner in the works is that an Illinois judge on a power trip takes a disliking to a British company refusing to show up even though the case is bogus and the court shouldn't have taken the case in the first place due to juristiction issues. Wild judgement is issued with massive punative damages which does little to harm Spamhaus. It's so large they'll never be able to comply. Instead, it just forces another company to stay outside the US due to an out of touch legal system. Oh and it adds about $11m to the price any American company that buys Spamhaus has to pay.

Costs are also a big difference

In the USA, each party pays their own costs no matter what happens. However, in the UK, if you file an action and it does not win, then you have to pay the costs for the other party. So, at the best, they can force them in the UK legal system, and because the spammer is not in the UK, they can seek the spammer puts up security for costs (to ensure they pay if they don't win). Thus the spammer would never touch the UK system as they would end up loosing the money they pay their lawyers, plus the cost for spamhaus to defend it.
ps... IANAL - anymore.

All spammers must die!

It is probably best to kill all spammers! I have been fighting spam for many years now. Why do they get to cause other people so much grieve and work?

Killing people in general is not right, but if you do it in a humane way, like shoot them through the head with a .454 casul?

It can't be hard to find volunteers for doing this. Shooting casul is a blast! ;)

p.s. don't actually do this..

Re:All spammers must die!

Killing people in general is not right, but if you do it in a humane way, like shoot them through the head with a .454 casul?

Firm, but fair! I don't think anyone could find fault with that!! ;)

The bigger question

If a company is sending spam why isn't the ISP for that company shutting them down? Isn't it against the AUP of most providers or at least the big carriers?

Spamhaus does alot of ignoring

For example when you tell them that they blacklisted your IP address and you can vouche that you don't spam, but they won't do anything because you belong to a /16 where somewhere sombody is spamming. blacklisting might be a good idea, but organizations like spamhaus make it bad in practice.

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring

It doesn't matter how much the judges know about technology, they know the law.

This is where we go back to the statement "default judgment". Since Spamhaus never bothered to show up in court to contest the charges, the judge had to decide in favor of the plaintif and award them whatever they asked.

Now, what the impact of an American civil judgment is on the directors of a British company, I have no clue. But I'll wager the folks at Spamhaus knew exactly what the impact would be and the decision to blow off the case was an educated one.

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring

You're thinking of SORBS

spamhaus is actually quite responsive, even with the inherant delays of communicating from Western Australia :P

I have never had SORBS remove a wrong ISP block... well, not until a week later and I'm pretty sure it's not in response to me.

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring

For example when you tell them that they blacklisted your IP address and you can vouche that you don't spam, but they won't do anything because you belong to a /16 where somewhere sombody is spamming. blacklisting might be a good idea, but organizations like spamhaus make it bad in practice.

Complain to people who use the list, not the people making the list.

Hmmmm

Sounds like a very appropriate response. Illinois is trying to enforce an ill-conceived law and Spamhouse is within their rights in under the laws of the country they opperate from. I do want to see the judges reaction to this one, it should be worth a laugh.

Color me confused.

I'm no lawyer, so can somebody explain to me how a court can say that Spamhaus, a service that customers voluntarily sign up for, cannot index IP addresses theat users wish to block? There is nothing Spamhaus does that a local mail server cannot do, they just already have a blacklist for you. Spamhaus is just, "Hey, don't trust these guys."

That's like saying I can't go to Consumer Reports and get an opinion on what car to buy.

Re:Color me confused.

Ehhh... not quite. See, e360insight is claiming that they're not a spammer, and thus their inclusion on the Spamhaus list is hurting their business, their image, is defamatory, and/or whatever else they think that they can get away with. And, because of this decision the (obviously clue-impaired) judge agreed with e360insight.

The analogy (with regards to your reference to Consumer Reports) would be if Consumer Reports published an opinion that a car company strongly disagreed with and believed was incorrect. You know, like saying "The new Ford SUV gets excellent mileage, considering it runs on the souls of orphaned children."

Whats next?

Am I going to get sued for blocking all those random girls from eastern europe and asia from contacting me via Skype?

great

this is just great, now spammers sue because you block thier spam. what's next? maybe cat burglers can sue those people with iron bars on thier windows, recoup thier loss of revenue

Good for them

I actually find the whole situation ammusing. But I say good for them. I am glad the company knows its rights and will not be walked all over by a court system well known for allowing people to abuse the ability to file civil suits.

operating in the US?

"This ruling confirms e360insight's position that Spamhaus.org is a fanatical, vigilante organization that operates in the United States with blatant disregard for U.S. law,"

Are they operating within the US or are people choosing to use their service within the US? There's a big difference between the two as far as I'm concerned.

good luck lads.

While ignoring the US system of 'Justice' is probably something Americans should do too, especially when it concerns implausibly large damages payouts, I think Spamhaus will need a lawyer or two. I refer the honourable anti-spam heroes to a similar case of fairness, justice and all-round puppy-like agreements. [bbc.co.uk]

Re:good luck lads.

The Natwest 3 concerns a criminal case. This is a civil case. There's no risk of extradiction.

Slight error

"in an uncontested trial in an Illinois court."

It isn't an Illinois court, it's a federal district court that happens to be in Illinois [wikipedia.org].

Cost to defend themselves not worth it

Why should a UK waste it's funding on defending a frivolous lawsuit that doesn't affect them. Now how the hell a US court can sue a company that doesn't exist within it's jurisdiction blows my mind.

Re:Cost to defend themselves not worth it

But that's what the US does, assumes whatever works there works throughout the world whether it's laws or just general ways of life. people and companies throughout the world are constantly fending off legal actions in regard to things that are quite legal on their home turf but illegal in the US.

Missed opportunity

I dont know why Spamhaus missed this great business opportunity.

It shoud send out the following email to everyone.

Dear Email Recepient,

My name is Sir Arthur Cunnigham, Bar-at-Law, Queen's Bench, City of London, the United Kingdom. The Illinois Supreme court, Chicago Illinois, USA has awarded a judgement against me [com.com] for the sum of 11 million dollars. If you have received any unsolicited email from me, I will have to pay you, 535$ as your share of the settlement. Even if you have not received any mail from me before, this email itself will entitle you a share towards the settlement.

So please send me your name, your address, your social security number, your bank account number, the routing number of your bank so that I can remit the said sum without undue delay. In addition to verify your identity, please let me have a valid credit card number, its expiration date and the card verification number. Please allow six weeks for me to raid^H^H^H^H credit your account with the money I owe you.

Have a nice day. Thank you

Competence of the court

Can any lawyer comment on how and why the US court thought it was competent to try the case in the first place? I know many Americans think that US law applies to all other countries, but in general American lawyers know better than this. It will be interesting to see if the US court tries to get extradition of the Spamhaus board to the US, and if our heroic government, pledged as they are to defend our rights, cave in to them as they did over Enron.

Okay - I'm not a fan of RBLs

The people who run these things usually have a rather superior attitude, and a rather childish attitude toward the law.

But this lawsuit seems completely ludicrous. Even with an undefended lawsuit it should have been obvious that this was outside their jurisdiction. Isn't there some restriction here?

Default Judgements

Before we all go off half cocked about Illinois coursts and how stupid the decision was... It was a default Judgment which means Spamhaus failed to show up in court and the Judge found in the plaintiffs failure.. Shame on them from not coming to fight it, and shame on us for putting judges in place that can not see through some technical jargon to realize when something is total crap and dismiss it on lack of merits.

Re:Default Judgements

Shame on them from not coming to fight it,

So if you get an e-mail message telling you you're being sued in Nigeria, because some of the comments you made on you blog as aprt of your work with a non-profit can be construed as Libel and you're being sued for millions you don't have, you're going to go buy a plane ticket and head to Nigeria?

...and shame on us for putting judges in place that can not see through some technical jargon to realize when something is total crap and dismiss it on lack of merits.

Us? I didn't appoint that judge, so stop blaming me. I really wish you had not appointed him, since that court is listed as one of the most unjust in the country according to the "judicial hellhole" report that monitors notably abusive courts where less than ethical lawyers tend to venue shop for cases with little merit. Stop it.

Say what you will

Linhardt and his company are indeed spammers and remain on the Spamhaus blocklist, the organization said. Posting a note that e360insignt was inaccurately labeled as a spammer would be a lie, Spamhaus said. If Linhardt wants a ruling that counts, he needs to refile his case in the UK, according to Spamhaus.

There are many out there that have had bad experiences with Spamhaus, but in this case, this guy is a known spammer. I'm surprised the court even gave credence to the lawsuit, but apparently the judge is not up on the Internet and spam. They are correct -- if he wants a judgement, he needs to file in UK court, where, given their recent history of prosecuting spammers, he stands little chance of succeeding.

Spam is a problem.

Spam is a serious problem. I run my own (Sendmail, thank you very much) mail server. I subscribe to a bunch of these blacklists, and also trade this huge list of spammers with a friend of mine from a local university. I still get spammed.

Some of us DIY sysadmins are on cable modems. Some of us are at a budget colo with no reverse DNS. I'm on some of the blacklists some of the time, and so there are some places I just can't send mail.

I don't trust any of the new mail systems, and I'm happy to deal with this anarchaic system. I'd like to be allowed to form spammer lynchmobs, and physically kick their asses though.

Jurisdiction?

How did the Illinois judge decide they had jurisdiction over a UK-only company in the first place? I thought courts throw out cases that they have no jurisdiction over.

Re:Jurisdiction?

How did the Illinois judge decide they had jurisdiction over a UK-only company in the first place?

Because this all happened in the second worst judicial hellhole [atra.org] in America.

What is a judicial hellhole you ask?

Judicial Hellholes are places that have a disproportionately harmful impact on civil litigation. Litigation tourists, guided by their personal injury lawyers seek out these places because they know they will produce a positive outcome - an excessive verdict or settlement, a favorable precedent, or both.

[quoted from the above link]

CIA to the rescue

If we rename spamming, e-mail-bombing, we may convince the spooks at Mother's Company, Langley, VA to do some extrodinary rendition of the Sapmhaus board of directors and executives. Just a thought.

Precedent?

Isn't this a bad thing, not for Spamhaus, but for companies that do the same kind of thing and *are* in the US? WIth this case as precedent, can't the spammers now attack US-based anti-spam companies?

Blues Brothers?

ELWOOD
"Illinois spammers."

JAKE
"I hate Illinois spammers"

DEFAULT judgement

Remember... this is a default judgement. If you're sued for anything and don't show up, you lose by default. There's nothing to do with the competence of the judge or the court, the merits of the case, or anything. If I sue you for moderating me down and ask for emotional damage compensation, you'd better show up to defend yourself or I'm going to win by default. If you're got a super low user id, I may ask the court to hand over your account to me.

Re:DEFAULT judgement

Yeah, but the question of whether it would be legally binding or not also depends on a lot of other things, such as the jurisdiction and whether it's a reasonable venue... an Illinois court is no more a reasonable venue for a UK-only company than the planet Jupiter. You could not be reasonably expected to absorb the costs of defending yourself in a foreign country like that, without even mentioning travel costs, legal costs, unfamiliarity with the law etc. the fact that what you did is not illegal in your country etc.

Judgement or not, it's null and void on more than one account - improperly served, incorrect jurisdiction, unreasonable venue, etc. the list goes on. The error, unfortunately, lies with the judge here for failing to account for jurisdiction.

Okay. So I did a bit of research.

It looks like there was a pre-existing restraining order. This according to Spamhaus, it was "served" by email. Which is not a legal manner to serve an order and has no effect in the UK anyway.

If the organisation was on the RBL, how do they know they were served?

(Note for the humour impaired - The fact that I have a note for the humour impaired should tell you something).

Perhaps they want to drag it into a UK court?

If spamming is illegal in the UK, as Spamhaus suggests, then it would
be in their best interest to drag David Linhardt into a UK court.

Once Linhardt shows up in the UK, and admits to spamming, it's over?
Spamhaus would receive judgement through the UK courts.

Maybe the $11.7million judgement is the enticement?

Sounds stupid, but we're talking about a spammer here...

Vip

Woah - this is a GREAT Idea

In an uncontested trial in a Somali court, yours truly obtained a default judgement that all Americans with an L in their name is to pay me a sum of USD 100 each.

What do you mean you don't care?

It's a weird weird world :)

Lack of a leg to stand on

At the most basic level the case has no merit for the simple reason that nobody forces system administrators to use Spamhaus. It is an opt-in service and represents a decision by the administrators of the e-mail servers that they do not want mail from hosts listed in said RBL. End of story!

Who is worse? The spammer or the lawyer that gives him the time of day?

Don't come to America

Steve Linford should be careful of his travels to America. Who knows what could happen if he ever sets foot in this country. There is a difference between civil and criminal, but people operating perfectly legal online casinos in foreign countries have been arrested when visiting the US.

Interesting and possibly relevent

I googled for "ignoring goreign lawsuit" and got a page mentioning that Canada will enforce foreign lawsuits [casselsbrock.com]. This is, of course, Canada rather than the UK, but they have a similar legal tradition. Could this backfire?

Legal documents

Here is a link to the whole timeline from e360Insight's webpage -- it includes info about the court and the judge and the decision: http://www.e360insight.com/case_history.html [e360insight.com]

You can cry all you like

Regardless of whether this ruling is enforceable in the UK (which it isn't), the fact remains that e360insight.com IS sending out thousands of emails that most people don't want. Doesn't matter what they are selling - cheap Viagra or a legitimate product - I don't want their advertisements in my users inboxes. That's exactly why I use Spamhaus to keep people like E360insight from littering my mailserver with their unwanted offers and advertisements.

At least use British spelling

Call me picky and I'm sure it doesn't mean anything legally but it would be a little more convincing if www.spamhaus.org didn't use american spelling.

http://www.spamhaus.org/legal/answer.lasso?ref=3 [spamhaus.org]

organisation isn't spelt with a zed.
I saw realize elsewhere on the site.

They may be UK but their servers are in the USA

And they sell their commercial services to US companies and citizens. My legal knowledge is limited but if you are doing business in a country then you are indeed subject to their laws.

Guess what time it is boys and girls!

So are we going to do a bulk mail freight train on David Linhardt and e360 Insight?
C'mon! Lets have some addresses...

e360insight has a phenominal site....

Ok yes that is sarcasm, so if you are truly a legitimate business wouldn't you probably have more to your own website other than just your whining about the injustices of a RBL company putting you on the list??? Anyway as a system admin, I am not saddened by this story one bit. Maybe Lindhart should have thought out their marketing practices better. People hate spam! Maybe focus that marketing money to an actual website and pump the money into getting it recognized by search engines better.

As far as the lawyer, well, I won't get into my feelings on lawyers, in most cases they are right down their with spammers and tape worms.

Here is a copy of what Spamhaus.org has on them:
-----------------------
63.78.194.0/24 is listed on the Register Of Known Spam Operations (ROKSO) database as being assigned to, under the control of, or providing service to a known professional spam operation run by Brian Haberstroh / Atriks.
e360Insight : bargaindepot.net / bargainshoppecorp.com
See also: SBL45648, SBL45649

www.bargaindepot.net. 3600 IN A 63.78.194.2
bargaindepot.net. 3600 IN NS ns12.bargaindepot.net.
ns12.bargaindepot.net. 172800 IN A 63.78.194.2

Registrant:
e360Insight, LLC
ATTN: BARGAINDEPOT.NET
c/o Network Solutions
P.O. Box 447
Herndon, VA. 20172-0447

Domain Name: BARGAINDEPOT.NET

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
e360Insight, LLC [e-mail] m
ATTN: BARGAINDEPOT.NET
c/o Network Solutions
P.O. Box 447
Herndon, VA 20172-0447
570-708-8780

Record expires on 05-Nov-2008.
Record created on 17-Mar-2005.
Bulk whois optout: Y
Database last updated on 26-Apr-2005 14:32:13 EDT.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS12.BARGAINDEPOT.NET 63.78.194.2
NS13.BARGAINDEPOT.NET 63.78.194.3

UUNET Technologies, Inc. UUNET63 (NET-63-64-0-0-1)
63.64.0.0 - 63.127.255.255
E360INSIGHT, LLC UU-63-78-194-D8 (NET-63-78-194-0-1)
63.78.194.0 - 63.78.194.255

CustName: E360INSIGHT, LLC
Address: 427 S LA SALLE ST
Address: FL 4
City: CHICAGO
StateProv: IL
PostalCode: 60605-1029
Country: US
RegDate: 2005-01-27
Updated: 2005-01-27

NetRange: 63.78.194.0 - 63.78.194.255
CIDR: 63.78.194.0/24
NetName: UU-63-78-194-D8
NetHandle: NET-63-78-194-0-1
Parent: NET-63-64-0-0-1
NetType: Reassigned
Comment: Addresses within this block are non-portable.
RegDate: 2005-01-27
Updated: 2005-01-27
-------------------

So maybe they should review their business practices. boo frickin hoo hoo!

That'll be $38,000, thank you very much.

Did I read this correctly ? They paid their lawyer 38 grand to get this pointless, invalid, and unenforceable judgement ? What a bunch of dumb-asses.

Linhardt also shows us what an amazing knucklehead he is when he says "Spamhaus.org is a ... organization that operates in the United States". Um. No it's not. But at least he demonstrates that his grasp of world geography is on a par with the average US high school "graduate".

If I Were You

If I were Spamhaus, I'd definitely put any USA travel plans on hold into the indefinite future. Even transiting in airports is dangerous these days.

Why not sue them back?

If e360insight is sending spam to people in UK, and they've admitted it in a U.S. court (though not in those terms), then UK companies should sue them in a UK court for their illegal activities.

If it works one way, it should work the other way too.

This word is important: default

It means that the other side didn't even show up. It also means that the court didn't bother looking into the merits of the case. One of the claims could have been that the operators of Spamhaus were little green men from Pluto and no one would even notice.

No precedent has been set. None.

The court didn't decide that the claimant was right, or that spamhaus was doing anything wrong. The one and only thing that the court gave an opinion on was whether or not the defendant appeared.

Andrew Jackson said it best.

To quote (approximately) President Andrew Jackson, "The court has rendered its judgement. Now, let's see them enforce it."

It's not like Spamhaus is the only one blocking

I find it curious that e360Insight's domain names and IP addresses are on many block lists, including at least a half dozen that are U.S. based, such as the widely used SURBL and lesser known but well regarded lists like Security Sage and AHBL. Yet e360Insight chose to go after a target that common sense says is out of reach.

Reading some of the historical articles, it became clear. Lost business and tarnished reputation have very little to do with this: it's personal.

Spamhaus Internet terrorists.

Spamhaus Internet terrorists. Becoming what you oppose Editorial by Dave Hayes Many folks have asked me why I stopped "contributing" to the everlasting debates in NANA (news.admin.net-abuse.*). I generally respond with something along the lines of "I don't wish to become that which I oppose". Indeed, recently I've "plonked" several entities (among them the terrorists known as "spamhaus" and "spews") simply because I no longer wish to beat my head against the stone wall of ignorance. Terrorists? Yes that's right. One definition of "terrorism" is "attacking innocents in the name of your cause". Nowhere is this more ironic and extreme than in the deeds of my old nemesi, the anti-spammer zealotry collective, some of whom are now known as spamhaus and spews. The terrorism they practice is implemented in the form of "mail blacklists". Blacklists are not a new notion. In the 1950's, the infamous McCarthy blacklists contained names of "possible communists", which ultimately led us to a more sterile culture. The social costs of what came to be called McCarthyism have yet to be computed. By conferring its prestige on the red hunt, the state did more than bring misery to the lives of hundreds of thousands of Communists, former Communists, fellow travelers, and unlucky liberals. It weakened American culture and it weakened itself. ---Victor Navasky, Naming Names (New York: Viking Press, 1980) Modern internet technology has created our own version(s) of social blacklists. Many anti-spam zealots have turned to this method for freeing their mailboxes from spam. Simply expressed, these organizations maintain databases which are supposed to contain the IP addresses of known spammers. They then provide these databases to various electronic mail servers, so that the servers can reject email based on what's in these databases. The bottom line is, if the machine that sends your email is on this list, a number of mail servers will automatically reject all email from your server. If (and only if) they restricted these blacklists to actual spammers, I doubt very seriously that I would have problem with this practice. If we could trust human beings to maintain a logical and calm viewpoint about life, I doubt that I would have a problem with these blacklists. Unfortunately we cannot trust these things in either case. Fact: Spamhaus and spews have added innocent IP blocks to their blacklists. The anti-spammer idealotry goes like this: "Anyone who gets service from a network friendly to spammers is supporting the spammers and therefore our enemy." (The friend of my enemy is my enemy too?) So here's how this goes. Once a network provider is branded "a communist"...er excuse me..."a spammer", ALL of their IP ranges are blocked. Typically a network provider is providing services for smaller service providers, many of whom would never and have never engaged in spamming of any kind. No notice is really given on these blacklisting events, rather you find out when mail starts bouncing to some destination. Usually an end customer is the first to notice, and that customers is directed by the bounce to complain to...their own ISP! In essence, the customer is tricked into presenting the terrorist anti-spam agenda to the ISP. The ISP turns around and finds out that their provider (or provider's provider) is what the anti-spam zealots want "silenced". Until that target complies with their arbitrary agenda (usually of the form "stop spamming", but this is not always true...see below), everyone else has to suffer with electronic mail blocks. What's wrong with this? Everything. * First and foremost, the most often heard reason anti-spammers are so rabid about anti-spam is "it makes electronic mail unusable for average people". If this is true, then how does blocking innocent email help this situation? In fact, blacklisting innocents contributes to the problem. The hypocrisy here is so thick I doubt even a knife can cut it. * The dishonor of the practice of blacklists is amazing. Many naive internet mail administrators add blacklists like spamhaus "bec

spammers are a lower form of life

The fact: Spamhaus is doing the world a great service. It alone is responsible for dramatically improving the online experience of hundreds, if not thousands, of people just in our org. Spamhaus is a TOOL people OPT IN to use, those who do not wish to use it may opt out or never opt in, and select something else or nothing at all. That some legitimate orgs get caught up is a most unfortunate side effect, and there should be ways to address this where warranted (ie, not some bottom-feeder sending threats saying he/she wants their junk servers removed).

The rant: Too bad all this prevention comes at our own expense. Spammers & scammers are the lowest forms of life. They should be dealt with most severely (FYI, these groups-spammers and scammers-have in many cases converged. They're often the same people. Don't believe me? Just read a few of the "HOT STOCK TIP" spams running rampant on the web). They are devoid of morals, despicable and venal in the truest sense, and their apathy towards the will of anyone not sending them money speaks volumes about their character. They exploit others and their victims bear the cost. Greed mongers, and should be treated with the same consideration they extend to others - none.

Re:I'll keep this in mind

Troll and obviously supposed to be sarcasm.

But maybe the next time someone in a foreign country tries to sue you for something that's a) not illegal in your country (in fact, SPAMMING is illegal in the UK, so they are not only obeying UK law but preventing the people in question from violating UK law themselves) b) nothing to do with you and c) without consulting you, serving you correct legal papers (reason enough to ignore any legal document) or bothering to contact any form of legal contact in your country, then maybe you can use your powers of sarcasm to get you out.

Seriously, this case is a joke... serving legal papers by EMAIL? WTF? Of course, email is a guaranteed delivery system that ensures that person on the other end recieves it, is the correct person and cannot deny ever having recieved it (that's how to do real sarcasm, by the way)

visits to Europe

It will be interesting to see what happens if David Linhardt visits Europe.