Appeals Court Tosses $11M Spamhaus Judgement

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."

Still don't get it.

[BubbaFett]

Shouldn't I be able to list any domain or IP in any database I please? Isn't it the responsibility of the people using the database to determine whether it's a bad idea? Isn't the real issue between the people blocking email and their customers who are missing email?

Re:Still don't get it.

[fbjon]

Presumably not if you advertise it as being reasonably accurate for some specific purpose.

Re:Oh yeah?

[misleb]

I think "not unexpected" is valid and meaningful statement. It doesn't quite mean the same as "expected." Though perhaps "unsurprising" would be a better way of expressing the meaning.

-matthew

Woe be gone

[packetmon]

I wonder how long will it be before some company like these fools [accucast.com] comes along and starts lobbying the powers that be to tweak "CAN-SPAM" like fables. I say get to the hardcore bottom of it all. Oh more Viagra spam eh... Sue the damn pharmaceutical companies for allowing their advertisers to break laws. That will minimize a whole slew of spam. Think about the monies pharmaceutical companies would have to even dish out to hear a case if half the US started filing small claims cases, class action cases, etc.

I don't get it

[SCHecklerX]

Certainly if someone wanted to receive e360's messages, or if they were EXPECTING a message from e360 and didn't get it, they can talk to their own mail admins and have e360 whitelisted. Why is it so hard to effectively explain to the courts that Spamhaus has nothing to do with whether e360's messages get through or not, other than responding to a query from the receiving end asking if Spamhaus believes they are a spammer?

In reverse, is the do-not-call list something that will be targeted next?

Re:Still don't get it.

[SCHecklerX]

Why? The receiving end is the one with the power to use or not use your list, or to whitelist certain entities in that list. On my own mail servers, I reject stuff that is on zen. The sender will get that error, and can talk to their own mail admins, who should see *why* they are on the list and work to get themselves removed. If that is impossible, and this is, indeed, a legitimate company trying to contact one of our employees (this has never happened, if they are legit, getting off the list is trivial), then the receiving end is the one who has the power to make the decision whether those messages should come in or not.

I don't see the problem with keeping a list. If it is a bad list with too many false positives, then nobody would use it. Sheesh.

Re:and DoubleClick

[Phil246]

I think corporations that get spammed, including ISP's should be able to go to companys like DoubleClick and e360 and bill them for the aggregiate costs. "You sent 2 million emails through our network last month, here is your bill for 200k for bandwidth + costs for the end users"

unfortunately that same logic could be applied to other sites that the ISPs want to extort
"Hello Google, you sent x Gigabytes of data through our network to our customers, here's the bill for the bandwidth used..."

Re:Still don't get it.

[misleb]

Right, but isn't it up to the users of Spamhaus to determine the accuracy for their purposes? I'm sure if the *users* of Spamhaus really cared about getting mail from e360 they'd let Spamhaus know about it. Sounds like the only people who care that Spamhaus lists e360 is e360.

-matthew

Re:Still don't get it.

[misleb]

You can, as long as that database doesn't infringe on the rights of other companies to do their business. If you listed Microsoft, SCO, and Apple all in a database of "douchebag companies", posted that on your site, and then told everyone to block them for being douchebags, I have a feeling you would get sued (and rightfully so).

Oh please, how many sites out there list "douchebag companies" and tell people not to buy from them? It is called free speech.

-matthew

   

Re:Still don't get it.

[Phroggy]

If you listed Microsoft, SCO, and Apple all in a database of "douchebag companies", posted that on your site, and then told everyone to block them for being douchebags, I have a feeling you would get sued (and rightfully so).

Nope, you're wrong. Since you mentioned Apple...

Carl Sagan once sued Apple for calling him a "butt-head astronomer." Sagan lost the suit, because according to the judge:

There can be no question that the use of the figurative term 'Butt-Head' negates the impression that Defendant was seriously implying an assertion of fact. It strains reason to conclude that Defendant was attempting to criticize Plaintiff's reputation or competency as an astronomer. One does not seriously attack the expertise of a scientist using the undefined phrase 'butt-head.'

I'm sure "douchebag companies" would fall into the same category.

Spamhaus' Register Of Known Spam Operations (ROKSO) is a list of "known professional spam operations that have been terminated by a minimum of 3 Internet Service Providers for spam offenses." That's a much more serious accusation than "butt-head" or "douchebag." If it's true, of course, then the plaintiffs can burn in hell... but they claim it's not true, and they've been falsely labeled by Spamhaus, which has damaged their reputation and cost them business.

The downside...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, where's the downside?
 
...God would punish you for killing people. So would the criminal justice system.

God still might even punish you just for thinking up such wicked crap.
Jesus said that someone who commits murder in their heart or wishes death to someone is no different than someone who actually commits the real thing.

Re:Still don't get it.

[DragonWriter]

A simple background check (which has been done at every job I've ever held) would reveal your list to be shite

Most places that do background check pay some third party to do it. If that third party relied in whole or in part on the list in question, perhaps to fill gaps in other records, then, no, the background check would not reveal the list would be wrong, it would return the results of relying on the list.

Now, what would happen in the real world today is that the first person to find out they were flagged would file, and win, a rather substantial defamation lawsuit that would put the company running the list out of business, assuming that there wasn't a reasonable basis for them being listed on the list. But you seem to oppose the very laws that punish such lies.