Well, then the solution is simple. You two get together and come to some agreement on how much he's going to pay you for each email that ends up in one of your inboxes. When you receive an email (or many), send him an itemized invoice and he can send you a payment. If there's a problem, just take him to court with the contract in hand and demand payment.

If he had asked me, I would have agreed to $10 per email -- quite a bargain compared to the $100 (plus damages) he agreed to when he decided to spam.

I predict some pacing up and down the halls and maybe a bit of hand waving in the near future.

http://www.nominum.com/company/advisory_board_vixie.php
"Today, Paul is considered the primary modern author and technical architect of BINDv8 the Berkeley Internet Name Domain Version 8, the open source reference implementation of the Domain Name System (DNS). He formed the Internet Software Consortium (ISC) in 1994, and now acts as Chairman of its Board of Directors. The ISC reflects Paul's commitment to developing and maintaining production quality open source reference implementations of core Internet protocols."

https://www.isc.org/about/leadership
President Paul Vixie
"Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. (ISC) is proud to be the producer and distributor of commercial quality Open Source software for the Internet Community" (read: BIND, among other things.)

Well, sure. Unless you count forging DNS results and deep packet inspection in order to insert ads into the sites you're visiting.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/15/0432259&from=rss
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/13/1832256

You can add Purdy (part of Sherwin-Williams) to your list of offenders.
http://www.ownrecognizance.com/purdy.html

These guys are all doing business in California. I wish they would be nailed based on this:
California's Business & Professions Code 17200 prohibits "unfair or fraudulent business act[s] or practice[s] and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising".
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=17001-18000&file=17200-17210

> Which makes it all the more surprising that Mr. Strict Constructionist John Roberts would mess it up, but there you go.

Great. More ammo for the kooks.