Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Spamhaus to Ignore $11.7M Judgement 471

Posted by kdawson
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spamhaus to Ignore $11.7M Judgement

Comments Filter:
  • wow (Score:3, Interesting)

    by freakybob (715183) on Friday September 15, 2006 @09:22AM (#16112744)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mustafap (452510) on Friday September 15, 2006 @09:25AM (#16112776) Homepage
      >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?
      • by MBGMorden (803437)
        Well, he didn't really say that they should give a shit - he just thought it funny that they were witholding of their shit.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by LiquidCoooled (634315)
        I would agree with you if they didn't reach into America, but on their site they say the following:

        The Spamhaus Block List

        The SBL is a realtime database of IP addresses of verified spam sources (including spammers, spam gangs and spam support services), maintained by the Spamhaus Project team and supplied as a free service to help email administrators better manage incoming email streams.

        The SBL is queriable in realtime by mail systems thoughout the Internet, allowing email administrators to identify o
        • Re:wow (Score:4, Informative)

          by legoburner (702695) on Friday September 15, 2006 @09:40AM (#16112899) Homepage Journal
          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 (Score:4, Insightful)

          by IPFreely (47576) <mark@mwiley.org> on Friday September 15, 2006 @10:31AM (#16113304) Homepage Journal
          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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by theckhd (953212) on Friday September 15, 2006 @09:36AM (#16112873)
        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 (Score:4, Informative)

          by diersing (679767) on Friday September 15, 2006 @10:58AM (#16113572)
          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: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by speculatrix (678524)
            I had some direct experience of spamhaus when I worked for an ISP who once hosted them.

            Unlike ORBS and SPEWS, they did care about their reputation, and were responsive as possible - given that they provided a free service and relied on volunteers.

            I've heard from people who did get blacklisted that it wasn't too hard.

            There's a fairly good chance that many slashdotters benefit indirectly from spamhaus, since most anti-spam systems use a weighting system to identify stuff as spam and will probably look u

        • Re:wow (Score:5, Interesting)

          by devilspgd (652955) * <slashdot@devilspgd.net> on Friday September 15, 2006 @11:04AM (#16113611) Homepage
          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: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by ahodgson (74077)
          From what I've read about Spamhaus, they tend to "not give a shit" in that sort of situation either, which is unfortunate.

          My company was listed by mistake once. A spammer was using one of our domains on their IP info.

          SpamHaus corrected the mistake within 24 hours.

          In my experience, they are by far the most professionally run blocklist ever.
    • by neoform (551705)
      and they shouldn't care either.
    • Spamhaus provide a special version of their ROKSO database to law enforcement (if requested) which not only contains all their details, but logs and other information to backup the claims that they are spammers.

      The court case was probably done in the States because they knew Spamhaus would not contest it and then they can turn round and say "we're not spammers and have won court cases to prove it".
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by tacocat (527354)

      And that is precisely why we are going to initiate a pre-emptive strike against the United Kingdom to prevent such behavior from getting out of control. Imagine the balls they must have to think for an instant that another sovereign nation can ignore anything the comes from the United States Rule of Law. I'm sure they have WMD's over there someplace.

      They probably owe us War Restitutions from the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 too.

      And look what they did to our language. They talk so funny you can

    • by sweetnjguy29 (880256) on Friday September 15, 2006 @02:16PM (#16115309) Journal
      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! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hey at least it's on topic
  • Good for Spamhaus (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ronanbear (924575) on Friday September 15, 2006 @09:23AM (#16112754)
    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 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by tygerstripes (832644) on Friday September 15, 2006 @09:26AM (#16112784)
      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?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        >They can't be arrested, can they
        The poster is probably referring to two british company directors (different firms) who have been arrested as soon as they stepped off the plane because they run Internet gambling firms, quiet legal in the UK but illegal in the US.
      • Jurisdiction (Score:4, Informative)

        by Alaren (682568) on Friday September 15, 2006 @09:54AM (#16113022)

        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.

  • by fe105 (146603) on Friday September 15, 2006 @09:23AM (#16112758)
    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..
  • by portwojc (201398) on Friday September 15, 2006 @09:24AM (#16112761) Homepage
    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?
    • by Neoprofin (871029)
      I would think that if the spammer is paying tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars every month in bandwidth costs the carriers will probably play dumb for as long as possible. As much as ISPs hate the cost of delivering spam I'm sure they love getting paid to send it.
    • by Matts (1628)
      I wish it were that simple. Sadly your question is terribly naive.

      See: http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=ver izonbusiness.com [spamhaus.org] for example.
    • 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?

      You'd think that would be the case, but once carriers have their money, they don't so much care. I send out lots of abuse reports, and I will more often than not -- hear nothing at all, and have nothing done about it. Monster.com is one of the more annoying spammers I get. They just don't care.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Frosty Piss (770223)
      Because (as is well known), American public corporations are not ethical. None of them. Money is the prime objective and how you get it is irrelivent.
  • by dfn5 (524972) on Friday September 15, 2006 @09:24AM (#16112767) Journal
    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cortana (588495)
      Surely all Spamhaus do is maintain a blacklist of network addresses of known spammers? They don't block the spam themselves. How could they? It seems like the US court order is... insane.

      Spamhaus are not liable if the information they published is used by a third party to decide not to accept your mail. Instead, blame the third party for making such a sweeping and unrealistic decision with only a minimum of supporting data.
      • It seems like the US court order is... insane.

        It's because judges in the US are old and really have absolutely no idea what they are judging on when they make judgements on technology. If they're as informed as Ted "Tubes" Stevens, well, it shouldn't come as any surprise that US courts are as insane as US lawmakers.

        • by jhagler (102984) on Friday September 15, 2006 @10:33AM (#16113324)
          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.
          • by Pig Hogger (10379)
            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.
            Why should have they shown up in court? The court has no jurisdiction!!! If you were sued in Azerbaijan, would you show up? No way!!! They have no more jurisdiction on you than the Illinois court has in England.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by tokul (682258)
      Are you sure that you haven't confused Spamhaus with SPEWS or some DUL list?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They only block larger parts when the ISP involved does not cleanup the problems or moves the spammer around inside their IP space. As far as 'escalation' listings go, Spamhaus is sure one of the more moderate parties, who only escalate after contacting the ISP fails.
    • by fostware (551290) on Friday September 15, 2006 @09:35AM (#16112857) Homepage
      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.
    • by OverlordQ (264228) on Friday September 15, 2006 @09:44AM (#16112937) Journal
      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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Ilgaz (86384)
      "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."

      It also means you share the same ISP who doesn't give a f to security, spam reports from naive people who thinks it will mean something and spare their precious time.

      The only thing to make that ISP/IP provider take care is: Move to another ISP which cares about security and quality of customers.

      You will figur
  • Hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BCW2 (168187) on Friday September 15, 2006 @09:24AM (#16112768) Journal
    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. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kirin Fenrir (1001780) on Friday September 15, 2006 @09:25AM (#16112769)
    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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by kalirion (728907)
      No, that's more like saying Consumer Reports can't say "Don't buy a Ford Pinto."
      • by jimicus (737525)
        Don't see why some consumer organisation can't say "We don't recommend you buy (product) for (reason)", however, and you choose how much attention you pay to this recommendation.

        SpamAssassin already does this - it's quite possible to set it up so something can be sent from something registered with spamhaus yet make it through the filter if everything else indicates it's not spam.
    • by Kierthos (225954) on Friday September 15, 2006 @09:32AM (#16112828) Homepage
      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."
      • With libel laws being even worse in Britain, it'd be interesting for them to take the case to Britain now. In Britain, the burden of proof, in defamation cases, is actually against the defendant (that is, once it's proven a statement was made by the defendant that clearly harms the reputation of the plaintiff, the defendant has to prove it is truthful and fair. Yeah, fair. Truth is not always, by itself, a defense.)

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's a default judgement, so the courts really didn't say anything.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by soarkalm (845400)
      I think there might be something in that the blurb says "defualt" judgement. If the defendant doesn't show up, then the case automatically goes against him, no?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Rucker (39335)
      IANAL, the article doesn't have many details, and my legal knowledge on this matter consists solely of Wikipedia entries, but it appears they could have argued Tortious Interference [wikipedia.org] which may qualify as Minimum Contacts [wikipedia.org] giving the court Personal Jurisdiction [wikipedia.org]. Among other things, Personal Jurisdiction is required for enforcement of foreign judgements [wikipedia.org].

      Whew. Gotta love Wikipedia.
  • Am I going to get sued for blocking all those random girls from eastern europe and asia from contacting me via Skype?
    • by azzy (86427)
      Only if you let us share your list.

      Please, can we share your list?
  • "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.
    • Spamhaus operates from London..
      I had to setup our contract with them so I have delt with them a few times.

      They don't have any offices or servers in the US.
  • by gbjbaanb (229885) on Friday September 15, 2006 @09:28AM (#16112797)
    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]

  • Slight error (Score:5, Informative)

    by Guppy06 (410832) on Friday September 15, 2006 @09:29AM (#16112801)
    "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].
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Friday September 15, 2006 @09:30AM (#16112815) Journal
    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

  • 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.
  • Say what you will (Score:3, Informative)

    by Billosaur (927319) * <wgrother@NosPAm.optonline.net> on Friday September 15, 2006 @09:33AM (#16112837) Journal
    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 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 t
  • Jurisdiction? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by interiot (50685) on Friday September 15, 2006 @09:35AM (#16112860) Homepage
    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.
    • I really have no idea, but I assume since spamhaus does not seem to have filed any motions, like one for dismisal, the judge just ruled for the default judgement.
    • Re:Jurisdiction? (Score:5, Informative)

      by august sun (799030) on Friday September 15, 2006 @10:43AM (#16113412)
      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]
  • 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.
  • by Stavr0 (35032) on Friday September 15, 2006 @09:45AM (#16112949) Homepage Journal
    ELWOOD
    "Illinois spammers."

    JAKE
    "I hate Illinois spammers"

  • DEFAULT judgement (Score:3, Informative)

    by Balthisar (649688) on Friday September 15, 2006 @09:48AM (#16112973) Homepage
    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.
    • by ledow (319597) * on Friday September 15, 2006 @10:06AM (#16113117) Homepage
      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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by lightspawn (155347)
      Remember... this is a default judgement. If you're sued for anything and don't show up, you lose by default.

      So how does it work, exactly? If companies all over the world sue the spammers, do they have to show up to defend themselves in dozens of countries or lose all by default?

      OK, everybody sue the bastards in your respective country. Problem solved.

      What's wrong with the legal system and isn't there any way to fix it?
  • by chiller2 (35804) on Friday September 15, 2006 @10:18AM (#16113213) Homepage

    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?
  • If I Were You (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Friday September 15, 2006 @12:53PM (#16114619)
    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.
  • by techno-vampire (666512) on Friday September 15, 2006 @03:23PM (#16115859) Homepage
    To quote (approximately) President Andrew Jackson, "The court has rendered its judgement. Now, let's see them enforce it."

NOWPRINT. NOWPRINT. Clemclone, back to the shadows again. - The Firesign Theater

Working...