* Note: Seems to suggest because it could have been faked, but IIRC it was entered in as court documents. The move resulted in the creation of "Spamteq" which was the official distributor of spamhaus data feeds.
There have been other RBLs who were very aggressive - SORBS comes to mind - but that's not Spamhaus's approach. They run a much cleaner operation, going for hard evidence of the few big spam-sources,
The obvious differences come to mind:
* Spamhaus is made up of different lists most of which are not their own source of data (eg: NJABL and CBL) their own data being limited to the SBL and the PBL.
* The SBL and in particularly it's ROSKO component is a libel case waiting to happen as it states 'this entity is a spammer'
* The externally compiled lists CBL/NJABL (like SORBS and other RBLs) state 'this is what this IP did on this date and time'
There are cases for Spamhaus, SORBS, and others where people complain "we can't get off the list" researching RBLs you'll notice they all have their warts, all have their complaints, and no, it's not always spammers that complain. RBLs are a sledgehammer where sometimes a scalpel is needed, but they are the most cost effective solution at the present time.
Here's a lawyers comment confirming what I said (and one of the places I got the info): http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/664
They did to have the case moved to federal court, when the judge declined their request they walked out.
, and yes I did Google it, this is all I found, which doesn't support what you said
Get *YOUR* facts straight.
GP's statement was reasonable considering the wording of the summary ("Spamhaus didn't bloody care")
From a link on the page you linked ( http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/664 )
it would have been possible for an attorney to make what is known as a “special appearance” before the court without acknowledging the court’s jurisdiction in the case. reading the record, i’m puzzled that this wasn’t the strategy spamhaus’s counsel chose.
4. unfortunately, since that’s not what happened, spamhaus may have waived personal jurisdiction as a defense early on in the case when they not only appeared, but then asked for the case to be removed from state court (where it was originally filed) and moved to federal district court (where it is today). arguably, and this makes sense intuitively even if you don’t understand the finer points of u.s. civil procedure, doing so inherently acknowledged the jurisdiction of the federal court. in the beginning of a case like this there are two choices:
a) you can fight it, or
b) you can claim the court doesn’t have jurisdiction and, basically, ignore it.
you can do one or the other, but you cannot do both. the pickle spamhaus is in right now is largely caused because they appear to have initially tried strategy (a) then switched to strategy (b). there may be a way to still raise the jurisdiction issue, but make no mistake, it’s an uphill battle at this point.
As I said, as an RBL operator, I have been watching this very closely from the start because it could have affected me personally, as it happens it doesn't appear that it will even though it is not a default judgement.
Gandi SAS is not in the USA. It was registered in France, or wherever they are.
It is now, it wasn't before. If you change the NANAE archive you'll see that teh registration was moved around the time of the first judgement to avoid 'seizure'.
They testified that Spamhaus was conducting business in Illinois. Which they were, since they were providing their service to people and businesses in Illinois.
Bullshit. Spamhaus posted files accessible on the Internet, and people in Illinois had the ability to retrieve these files and do whatever they wanted to do with them, with no business conducted by or on behalf of Spamhaus whatsoever.
E360 submitted a quote or invoice (I forget which but that is of little consequence) which was on so called 'spamhaus headed paper' (it's in the court documents IIRC), which was addresses to a company address in Il... there by giving weight to E360's argument that the company did conduct business in Il...
it makes no matter to the LOCAL BRITISH COURT *why* the judgement was issued, only that it was issued at all..
No the problem was they initially turned up and then walked out.
"Spamhaus didn't mount a defense in the case; the ruling was a default judgment in absence of counterarguments." That's a little grey, but it sounds to me like Spamhaus didn't initially show up. If you've got a citation that suggests otherwise, please post it.
Judgement made in default != default judgement. Default Judgement = the defense is a no show. Judgement made in default = defense showed but stayed silent (or in the case of Spamhaus, walked out (= refused to answer) when the judge ruled that the court had jurisdiction)
Spamhaus/their lawyers f**ked up
How do you figure? Spamhaus (wisely, IMHO) looked at the case, decided they could spend boatloads of money fighting a frivolous lawsuit which they would *probably* -- but NOT necessarily -- win, or since they are not in the U.S.' jurisdiction, they could save themselves the worry and the stress by ignoring the lawsuit. The court that awarded the win to the spammer has no jurisdiction in the U.K. so as long as Spamhaus' CEO doesn't come to the U.S., what difference does it make to him? It's not like he's going to be extradited for this. If somebody sues me in a foreign country that I never intend to visit, the odds of me spending any money or effort to fight the lawsuit are somewhere between zero and none. Spamhaus did likewise.
Problem is Spamhaus originally appointed lawyers to go to the court. This was the mistake, when the lawyers appeared for Spamhaus, Spamhaus effectively 'appeared in court' (even if to contest jurisdiction). They should have, as you indicated you would (and as I would) not even appeared. If they had not appeared, then the CEO visiting the USA or not would have no effect as the case was heard in the Illinois court, and not in the federal court.
...the result was they had to pay a spammer for the f**kup.
Ummm, no. The result was a judge ordered them to pay a spammer for their strategic decision. It may be subtle, but there is a difference between a judge ordering you to do something and actually having to do it. As long as you are not in the judge's jurisdiction, you don't have to do anything they order.
Second issue in point, and a second mistake to make if you don't consult a lawyer. There is this little treaty with the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and most of Europe, known as the 'cross border enforcement treaty'. If you hold a judgement from a US court in your favour (not a default judgement - note the difference I mentioned above) against a UK entity you can apply to the UK High Court to have your judgement enforced, the ONLY defense against it is that the court where the case was heard did not have jurisdiction. Problem is Spamhaus worked out when it was too late that 'judgement in default' is not a 'default judgement' and therefore cross border enforcement would be applied. This is why they first tried to appeal the judgement (and were refused because they 'appeared') then appealed the amount of damages.
The simple facts were, they screwed up (they even admit it themselves that they "had advice which was incorrect") a judgement which is enforceable was made against them, they appealed on the only option - the amount of damages, and they won their appeal by having the damages reduced to $27k.
Net effect, they lost the case, they will pay or risk copping significantly more costs when/if it is brought to the UK high court for enforcement. That said, rumor has it, the game is not over, but only time will tell.
Note: this has been discussed to the death on NANAE where someone reportedly from Spamhaus responded with "please don't give the spammer ideas".
Secondly, the US law doesn't apply to the rest of the world. Spamhaus chose not to appear in court because they:
1 - Weren't even in america
They contested jurisdiction, evidence was presented they were doing business in the USA. American law applies to companies doing business in the USA whether USA owned or not. You first point about criminal law is mute because this was a civil matter not criminal.