Slashdot Log In
Spamhaus to Ignore $11.7M Judgement
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Sep 15, 2006 08:15 AM
from the i-say-it's-spam-and-i-say-the-hell-with-it dept.
from the i-say-it's-spam-and-i-say-the-hell-with-it dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: 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?
[+]
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.'"
[+]
Your Rights Online: Email Servers Will Choke, Says Spamhaus 576 comments
Rub3X writes, "The legal battle between antispam organization Spamhaus and e360 Insight is heating up. Spamhaus has a user base of around 650 million, and its lists block some fifty billion spam emails per day, according to the project's CEO Steve Linford. Spamhaus CIO Richard Cox says the immediate issue is that if the domain is suspended, the torrent of bulk mail hitting the world's mail servers would cause many of them to fail. More than 90% of of all email is now spam, Cox says, and he doubts that servers worldwide would be able to handle a ten-fold increase in traffic." Others estimate Spamhaus's blocking efficacy as closer to 75%; by this metric spam would increase four-fold, not ten-fold, if Spamhaus went unavailable. The article paraphrases CIO Cox as saying that the service will continue "even if there is a short-term degradation."
[+]
Your Rights Online: 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.'"
[+]
Appeals Court Tosses $11M Spamhaus Judgement 134 comments
Panaqqa writes "In a not unexpected move, the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the $11 million awarded to e360 Insight and vacated a permanent injunction against Spamhaus requiring them to stop listing e360 Insight as a spammer. However, the ruling (PDF) does not set aside the default judgement, meaning that Spamhaus has still lost its opportunity to argue the case. The original judge could still impose a monetary judgement, after taking evidence from the spammer as to how much Spamhaus's block had cost them. This is unfortunate considering the legal leverage the recent ruling concerning spyware might have provided for Spamhaus."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Spamhaus to Ignore $11.7M Judgement
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 471 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
wow (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.drivesentinel.co.uk/)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:wow (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.comparecomponents.com/ | Last Journal: Friday September 15 2006, @02:04PM)
Re:wow (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday May 17 2005, @09:12AM)
Maybe spammers should also follow local laws in the foreign countries in which they spam^H^H^H^H^H operate.
Re:wow (Score:4, Informative)
(http://evilcouch.com/)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:wow (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.ledow.org.uk/)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday March 24 2006, @12:46PM)
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! (Score:2, Funny)
Good for Spamhaus (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good for Spamhaus (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
ps... IANAL - anymore.
All spammers must die! (Score:5, Funny)
Killing people in general is not right, but if you do it in a humane way, like shoot them through the head with a
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! (Score:5, Funny)
Firm, but fair! I don't think anyone could find fault with that!!
The bigger question (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://wkrp.com/)
Spamhaus does alot of ignoring (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday January 06 2005, @12:42PM)
Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
spamhaus is actually quite responsive, even with the inherant delays of communicating from Western Australia
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday February 15 2007, @08:00PM)
Complain to people who use the list, not the people making the list.
Hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday September 25 2006, @07:02PM)
Color me confused. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's like saying I can't go to Consumer Reports and get an opinion on what car to buy.
Re:Color me confused. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
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? (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Sunday July 01, @08:03AM)
great (Score:1)
Good for them (Score:1)
operating in the US? (Score:2)
(http://evil.google.com/)
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. (Score:3)
Re:good luck lads. (Score:4, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday November 09, @04:36PM)
Slight error (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Saturday October 27, @04:36PM)
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 (Score:1)
Re:Cost to defend themselves not worth it (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://pcbookreview.com/)
Missed opportunity (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Wednesday October 31, @08:33AM)
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 (Score:2)
Okay - I'm not a fan of RBLs (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Friday June 11 2004, @11:15AM)
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 (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Default Judgements (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
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 (Score:3, Informative)
(Last Journal: Wednesday November 07, @10:09AM)
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. (Score:2)
(http://www.wifimaps.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday June 19 2004, @09:58PM)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://paperlined.org/)
Re:Jurisdiction? (Score:5, Informative)
Because this all happened in the second worst judicial hellhole [atra.org] in America.
What is a judicial hellhole you ask?
[quoted from the above link]
CIA to the rescue (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Wednesday October 31, @08:33AM)
Precedent? (Score:1)
Blues Brothers? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/~Stavr0/journal/ | Last Journal: Thursday January 19 2006, @01:18PM)
"Illinois spammers."
JAKE
"I hate Illinois spammers"
DEFAULT judgement (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.balthisar.com/)
Re:DEFAULT judgement (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.ledow.org.uk/)
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. (Score:2, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday June 11 2004, @11:15AM)
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? (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
(http://www.cow.dk/ | Last Journal: Wednesday January 17 2007, @10:37PM)
What do you mean you don't care?
It's a weird weird world
Lack of a leg to stand on (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.kelv.net/)
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 (Score:2)
Interesting and possibly relevent (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Friday June 11 2004, @11:15AM)
Legal documents (Score:1)
You can cry all you like (Score:1)
At least use British spelling (Score:2)
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 (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Saturday January 14 2006, @03:46AM)
Guess what time it is boys and girls! (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/)
C'mon! Lets have some addresses...
e360insight has a phenominal site.... (Score:2, Informative)
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 qp3zx6n33ee@networksolutionsprivateregistration.c
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. (Score:1)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Linhardt also shows us what an amazing knucklehead he is when he says "Spamhaus.org is a
If I Were You (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not sue them back? (Score:1)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
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. (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://zeff.us/)
It's not like Spamhaus is the only one blocking (Score:1)
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. (Score:1)
spammers are a lower form of life (Score:1)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.ledow.org.uk/)
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 (Score:1)
(http://defoam.net/ | Last Journal: Sunday September 28 2003, @10:18AM)