Spammer That Sued Spamhaus Now Sued for Spamming

Dave Q. Lintard writes with a link to The Register's coverage of a suit against the spammer that sued Spamhaus. e360 Insight, as the company is known, is accused of using a botnet and compromised headers to get their 'advertising' into the mailboxes of the claimant. These are also the folks that tried to get the Illinois courts to suspend SpamHaus's domain registration when they wouldn't play by e 360's rules. 'e360 Insight sued Spamhaus after the anti-spam organisation blacklisted its domains over alleged spamming. In a default ruling made by an Illinois court in September 2006, Spamhaus was ordered to pay $11.7m in compensation to e360 Insight, pull the organisation's listing, and post a notice stating that it was wrong to say e360 Insight was involved in sending junk mail. UK-based Spamhaus did not defend the case and the ruling was made in its absence.'

The Ultimate .Forward

[BillGatesLoveChild]

> In a default ruling made by an Illinois court in September 2006,
> Spamhaus was ordered to pay $11.7m in compensation to e360 Insight

Let's all forward our spam to the judge responsible.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[klingens]

If a party doesn't show up to a court date and defend itself, the judge has to rule for the plaintiff. It's the law. Enforcing that decision is of course a different thing as spamhaus is still online.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[Bastard of Subhumani]

That might well be the law. It might be relevant to this case too, if Illinois courts had jurisdiction over the UK.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[Silver Sloth]

And the day that Illinois courts have jurisdiction in the UK we'll start throwing tea (or should that be Starbucks coffee) into the harbour.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

But the Deep Ones only drink Starry Wisdom Coffee.

Insanely arrogant USA judges

[walterbyrd]

Of course the USA courts had a choice. The court could have said "sorry, we have no jurisdiction" and that would be the end of it. IMO: too many judges have a "god" complex.

Re:Insanely arrogant USA judges

[EveLibertine]

They didn't, at least not in this case. Spamhaus requested that the case be handled by this court. They chould have let it go to any court, then argued that whichever court it was had no jurisdiction, or let the court decide whenever it was handed the case that it didn't have jurisdiction. But that's not what happened. By requesting a specific court, it appeared that Spamhaus was going to actually fight the merits of the case, which would have waved jurisdiction arguements. So, to any court handling the case at this point, it would appear that Spamhaus was going to accept U.S. jurisdiction. But Spamhaus was just moving it to a court that they knew didn't have jurisdiction so that they wouldn't even have to show. I don't know why they didn't just let it go to any court, state or federal, and then claim grounds of no jurisdiction. Maybe their lawyers thought they might run into trouble in U.S. federal courts or something, and thought they had better chances of going this route. Nevertheless, the decision was Spamhaus', not any judge with a "god" complex.

Re:

[gvc]

Spamhouse requested that this case be handled by the court.

This statement requires substantiating evidence.

Re:

[choongiri]

This statement requires substantiating evidence.

Here you go: http://www.spamsuite.com/files/e360vSpamhausNotice Removal.pdf [spamsuite.com]

By submitting the notice of removal instead of a defence of no jurisdiction, Spamhaus shot themselves in the foot, and submitted by default to the jurisdiction of the Illinois court.

Re:

[www.sorehands.com]

Incorrect, removal to federal court does not consent to jurisdiction. See Morris & Co. v. Skandinvia Ins. 279 U.S. 405,409 (1929); Phillips v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 101 F.2d 723,727 (9th Circuit 1939).

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

well, if I had a choice, I'd choose to have it go to a court that I knew 100% didn't have juristiction over me as it would then be easier to tell them to shove off. Rather than risk it going to a court that might think that it did have a case for juristiction. Either way, what this case shows is that civil cases at the very least need a 'public sceptic' appointed by the court who's job it is simply to get the case thrown out for lack of juristiction, or oppose the plaintiff's evidence. If you're sued by som

I'm not being very original...

[msimm]

But reposting [spamhaus.org] Spamhaus' own statement here seems reasonable. I hadn't read it before today myself.

A SLAPP lawsuit filed in an Illinois (United States) court by David Linhardt (aka e360 Insight LLC) against The Spamhaus Project Ltd., a British-based non-profit organization over which the US court had no jurisdiction, went predictably to default judgement when Spamhaus did not accept U.S. jurisdiction.

To get the lawsuit case accepted in Illinois, instead of filing in the correct jurisdiction (United King

Re:

[skinfitz]

Spamhaus requested that the case be handled by this court.

Rubbish. [spamhaus.org]

Re:

[choongiri]

Unfortunately the problem is the Illinois court does have jurisdiction over the UK company, the reason - if I remember correctly - is that instead of initially presenting the defence of no jurisdiction (which likely would have been ruled in Spamhaus's favour), Spamhaus initially requested the case be transferred to the federal court rather than Illinois, thereby submitting de facto to the jurisdiction of the Illinois court. A defence of no jurisdiction has to be presented in a very specific way at the right

Re:

[www.sorehands.com]

Last, I would like to emphasize that CAN-SPAM compliant emailers are not a legitimate spam problem. By definition, everything that is sent by CAN-SPAM emailers is solicited, and by law, anyone who doesn't want that email can get off the list. Each message contains instructions on how to remove oneself.
Look at the plain language of unsolicted. CAN-SPAM sets a set of requirements for commercial e-mails which are not transactional messgages or prior affirmative consen -- unsolicited.

Re:

[www.sorehands.com]

Second, we already know that Spamhaus is unconcerned with CAN-SPAM compliance, and that it didn't dispute that e360insight complied with CAN-SPAM. According to Spamhaus, CAN-SPAM compliance is irrelevant. It wasn't the case that Spamhaus asserted that e360insight didn't comply with CAN-SPAM. I suspect the probably did comply. Its trivially easy.

You make two incorrect assumptions. One can filter spam, whether or not the spam is CAN-SPAM compliant. One can call e-mail spam, if the e-mail is unsolicited comme

Re:

[jimicus]

IANAL but I don't think the judge should rule for anyone if either plaintiff or defendant is outside the judges jurisdiction. And as Spamhaus isn't US based, they're outside of the judges jurisdiction.

The only thing they can't sensibly do now is set up business on US soil, but why would they need to do that?

Re:

[SkyDude]

IANAL but I don't think the judge should rule for anyone if either plaintiff or defendant is outside the judges jurisdiction. And as Spamhaus isn't US based, they're outside of the judges jurisdiction.

The only thing they can't sensibly do now is set up business on US soil, but why would they need to do that?

As another poster mentioned, when the defendant fails to appear for a hearing, the plaintiff is victorious. The "ruling" is just a technicality.

While Spamhaus probably has no plans to set up in the USA, this ruling wouldn't stop them. I could incorporate a business today called Spamhaus, Inc. and the ruling would not affect my business. A new corporation is a new entity, and, unless a deep investigation into the stockholders was made and revealed an attempt to circumvent the court's ruling, only then co

Re:

[The_Wilschon]

Very dangerous, as it allows any company which primarily does sketchy business in the US to have a mailing address in, say, Malaysia, and designate that their headquarters. Then anybody they do business with is in the US, and thus cannot sue them.

In a world where international business is allowed, there really needs to be some provision for international lawsuits.

Re:

[canuck57]

If a party doesn't show up to a court date and defend itself, the judge has to rule for the plaintiff. It's the law. Enforcing that decision is of course a different thing as spamhaus is still online.

But the judge could have also said they have no jurisdiction. Or tossed it out based on stupidity of the claim.

What will be interesting is California judge is in jurisdiction of e360 and there is not much doubt in my mind e360 sent this guy spam.

Lets hope the CA judge tosses e360 and its operators into the po

Jurisdiction has already been determined.

[www.sorehands.com]

I am the one who filed suit against E360Insight and Linhardt [myspamsuit.com].

Courts already ruled that spammers can be sued where the spam is received (known as the effects test from Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 804 S. Ct. 1482). My successful brief agaainst a porn spammer is here [barbieslapp.com].

Additionally, E360's sister business (http://www.bargaindepot.net) specifically programmed their web site to take orders from California (via drop down lists).

I don't think that any motion by them saying that there is no jurisdiction over them in Califonia, but they have jurisdiction over Spamhaus in the UK will pass either the smell test or the laugh test.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[asninn]

It was a *default ruling* - Spamhaus didn't have anyone show up for the trial, so they lost by default, and I'm pretty sure the judge didn't have much choice in that regard.

I can certainly *understand* Spamhaus, of course; if somebody sued me in another country, I wouldn't fly there just to attend a trial, either, and I'd certainly ignore the verdict (why do they think they'd have jurisdiction over me, anyway?), but the rules are still the rules, and the judge just did what the rules said, so don't blame him.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[BillGatesLoveChild]

I thought the fun thing about Common Law is judges are allowed to make it up as they go? The Judge could have, in absentia, still found for Spamhaus and sentenced the Spammers to death by hanging. It would have been worth it to see the look on their faces. :-)

It would have of course been overturned on appeal. Maybe.

Re:

[BillGatesLoveChild]

> Last I looked, civil justice systems couldn't hang anyone.

But *they* wouldn't know that! It's what Judge Harry Stone would have done.

> And stare decisis is actually binding in criminal cases.

Oh my wordy! He's quoting Latin at me... I'm clearly outgunned here! Wait! What's that a voice? I heard a voice. Jimmy? Is that you? "Use the Wikipedia, Billy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis [wikipedia.org]

Well this case sounds pretty unique to me, otherwise we wouldn't have been talking about it. Here's a precedent

Re:

[budgenator]

if memory serves me correctly, e360 stated the spamhaus had an office in the United States,and without any further testimony from spamhaus, the court had to except that as true. Now if Silverstein's suit is successful, and e360 is convicted of a spamming charge, spamhaus can appeal and it will pretty much be a slam-dunk and might even get some damages.

That is the point!

[www.sorehands.com]

Or at least part of the point. Once I win, and I will one, they cannot sue anybody for calling them a spammer as they did to group of newsgroup posters [googlepages.com].

Re:

[EveLibertine]

IANAL and I'm pretty sure that someone more knowledgeable in this subject than I will post a clarification of this. Still, it should be said that one of the ways the U.S. courts provides to contest jurisdiction is to just not show up, then after a default ruling, they can go ahead in continuing the process of contesting jurisdiction. I gather that another way of doing this is to actually show up in court and declare that there is no jurisdiction. The tricky part is that if you show up in court and first dec

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[Don_dumb]

That might all well be true BUT the U.S. courts can do all they want, Spamhaus are in the UK. And are literally outside of the jurisdiction of the US court. No one should be forced to travel to another country just to say they don't work in that country.
Surely when the writ (or whatever it is called) was registered, the address of the people they were suing (the UK) should have made it clear that they were trying to sue someone they had no right to. IMHO a court system shouldn't process a litigation without an address of the defendant in the jurisdiction of the court system.

Re:

[EveLibertine]

Agreed, no one should be forced to travel to another country to say they don't work there. But, you seem to imply that Spamhaus was somehow forced to represent themselves in this case. They weren't, and they didn't even show up anyway. In the end of it all, they'll probably wind up counter-suing for legal costs incurred over the whole venture. About your idea with court systems not processing litigation. I don't know about this. If a court thinks it doesn't have jurisdiction, it should just get bumped up t

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

And are literally outside of the jurisdiction of the US court

well, that's true to a point. Check the details of the "Natwest Three" [wikipedia.org](plenty of good links at the bottom of the wiki) who ended up extradited to the US to stand charges on a matter that was not only supposedly committed on UK soil, but already dismissed by the British legal system as not having nearly enough evidence to prosecute.

The US wants to be the world's police, but also the world's judge, jury and executioner. We should never have invented Judge Dredd.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Joebert]

Much less, last I heard India was doing invasions for R1000.

Re:

[cpt kangarooski]

No, if you want to contest jurisdiction in US courts, the best means is to actually do so, if necessary by means of a special appearance for that purpose so that you don't inadvertently waive the point. So long as you follow the right procedure, it's entirely possible to argue jurisdiction and to argue the merits of the case. Ignoring the court is not a good way to go about things.

How to sue anybody anywhere and win!

[BillGatesLoveChild]

If I decide to take a short holiday I can strap on my backpack and go for a 30-country tour, stopping in each and filing a motion against my victim. Even big companies would find it time-consuming and expensive to respond to each complaint. Medium, small companies and individuals have no chance of handling them all. One gets through, and by not appearing, the Judge rules that I am the winner and demands my victim makes payment.

In theory unenforcable, but if my victim steps foot in said company, opens a loca

Re:

[Technician]

Let's all forward our spam to the judge responsible.

Let's not send him all our spam. Just send him the spam from e360 insight that was relayed through a forign bot (against US can-spam law) since he has openly denied in court he is not doing this.

Let the mountain of fraud evidence stack up on the judges desk.

Then net the judge know by snail mail that Spamhaus can help with the problem of unwanted junk mail by deciding on using their advisory list to filter their own mail.

Re:

[XSforMe]

Better yet, lets all forward our spam to e360 contact form. Please feed me spam [e360insight.com]!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Technician]

someone buys the judgement against Spamhaus from the recievers for $1, and donates it to Spamhaus.

Um no. That would validate the court rulling. Big time No No NO! It's better to have the ruling reversed to set precidence and jail the e360 solutions personel for purgery and fraud.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Technician]

That's OK. It's better to leave it unsettled than to set a bad baseline. It's not going anywhere unless the spammer (watch me get sued for libel) takes up the case in the UK.

So far, the case is a laughingstock of what is wrong with the US courts. Why validate their decision with a buying of the case for $1.

It is better to prove it is out of their jurisdiction by public shame. A better one is watching what lengths the spammer will go to try to collect. I hope he is stupid enough to bring it up in a UK co

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[SLi]

Finland. Well, at least if you have claims against someone lives in China and who has never been to Finland. Which is quite like the case here.

Spammers Move From Email to the Courts

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a lawyer, but after reading through the motions [spamsuite.com] of the court case of e360Insight against SpamHaus, I'd say they reek of spammers moving from e-mail to the courts.

A sad day when our communications channels are jammed with this bullshit. An even sadder day when our justice system is over ridden with it.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Our court systems have been jammed with bullshit since the day they allowed people to blame others for their own irresponsibility.

It's time to start holding people accountable for their own actions again. Stop the pandering. Stop the bullshit.

Factual inaccuracy

[Looce]

Default judgments obtained in U.S. County, State or Federal courts have no validity in the United Kingdom and can not be enforced under the British legal system. A Plaintiff seeking to have such an order enforced must re-file the case in a British court of law and prove jurisdiction, as well as the small matter of proving the merits of the case, all of which were in this case bogus and would not have stood up in any court if tested. Spamhaus had advised Mr Linhardt from the start that a U.S. judgement would be invalid outside of the United States and that he would need to re-file his case in the United Kingdom. Spamhaus understands that David Linhardt does not wish to file in the United Kingdom because his activities are illegal here.

With source [spamhaus.org], of course. Emphasis mine. The entire document linked here is worth reading.

TFsummary failed to mention this.

P.S. This is old news

[Looce]

P.S.: Since I had already read about Mr. Linhardt and Spamhaus, I thought this was to bring more info to me on this matter. It seems that this The Register article (from Mar 23, 2007) actually refers to a statement made by Spamhaus from Sep 2006!

This is old news. Or, as I call it, just "olds".

Re:P.S. This is old news

[AndroidCat]

Please post your email address, and we will opt you out of further news on this topic.

Super remove close reason reveal identity known event complaint legal goes. edited AM. delivered Troika system. copy Sandhills Company rights reserved. tool crack mode. If happening anything unable candidate number tested per second branch bytes Software.

Re:

[Looce]

My e-mail address is [e-mail] . I very eagerly await your e-mails showing the virtues of Vliazzgra, CîàLI5 and RolexReplixas and their ever-increasing importance in our society.

I wish to thank you in advance for this valuable information. You can never get really up-to-date on these things.

How did Spamhaus lose?

[Ka D'Argo]

Not being upheld in the UK aside, didn't they have proof to show the courts the company in question did in fact use underhanded illegal tactics to achieve it's advertising? I ask cause, not only did they lose but they were forced to de-list the company and basically apologize. It doesn't make sense. When a sex offender is caught, and proof given, they are put on a list and basically not removed, hell the list updates whenever they chose to relocate and such. So why could a spammer, just have this twisted ar

Re:

[Tarquin Sidebottom]

Spamhaus 'lost' because they didn't accept jurisdiction, so did not turn up. The judge had no option but to give a default ruling in favour of e360.

Re:

[AndroidCat]

The first thing a court does in each case is establish that it has jurisdiction. At that time, the judge had the option of rejecting the case on the legal principle of "What, are you nuts?" (It sounds much better in Latin.)

Re:

[nagora]

Not being upheld in the UK aside, didn't they have proof to show the courts...

It was more important to establish the point that the US judicial system is not a "world court" able to haul anyone in at a whim to spend a small fortune defending themselves against spurious actions which should never have reached a trial. The fact that the judge was a total moron who was unable to see through a pathetic tissue of lies shows how dangerous it would have been to have allowed any person from Spamhaus to become a lit

Re:

[EveLibertine]

The fact that the judge was a total moron who was unable to see through a pathetic tissue of lies shows how dangerous it would have been to have allowed any person from Spamhaus to become a literal captive hostage in the US while this was being sorted out.

Look, don't call the judge a moron. He's not. I can't bring myself to call you a moron, though you are obviously ignorant of the facts here. The way the courts work here, and in most other countries, is that the courts assume that they have jurisdiction.

Re:

[EveLibertine]

Well, now you're just being a smartass.

I meant to say defendant, I would think that it was rather obvious what I meant. It appears you understood my meaning anyway, so I am not wrong in thinking that it was obvious. Are you finished with the pointless name calling?

Re:

[EveLibertine]

Wrong, language is merely a mode of transporting meaning. You understood, thus my language was sufficient.

It may not have been perfectly accurate, but I admitted the mistake in my previous post, so your making a further fuss of it is rather unwarranted. Furthermore, if you didn't care what I meant, why did you bother to correct it? You certainly could have been more kind or civil about it, or at the very least been constructive and offered the correct terminology. You over-reacted, you got called - get over

Re:

[Bastard of Subhumani]

It really isn't that difficult to understand what my question meant, but perhaps I have been misled regarding your intellectual capacity.

Proabably the case - your estimate of your own is certainly way off.

Re:

[AndroidCat]

Until the court establishes its jurisdiction in the case, what defendant?

Re:

[fritsd]

No, sorry, I see the pp's point here -- the fact that you used the wrong word, can be called a "technicality" IIRC.
Now consider, that IIRC, in this case of Spamhaus, their *lawyers* made a wrong response to the Illinois judge, which made it impossible for said judge to dismiss the case as being outside of jurisdiction. Spamhaus then fired their (U.S.A!) lawyers, but it was already too late.
So, normally I would agree with you that pp is a smartass :-) but not when we're talking about a lawsuit that was (IMHO

Re:

[Achromatic1978]

In which case, Spamhaus should be looking at malpractice proceedings against their representation. This is a fairly elementary, black and white thing that a reasonable person should be able to presume competent legal counsel would be able to interpret correctly.

Of course, if it's anything like most countries, the simple fact that most politicians are lawyers and don't like the idea of other lawyers that they used to work with being sued have made it either extremely difficult, or waived responsibility for

Re:

[Achromatic1978]

Okay, so let me get this straight. You see no issue with the fact that I, as a "defendant", should have to spend large amounts of time to travel overseas, and / or engage the services of a lawyer overseas, in order to tell a court that has no jurisdiction over me that, gasp, it has no jurisdiction over me?

Re:

[Entrope]

You are on crack. If Spamhaus were worried that any of their people might get served in the US, they could have spent the $10,000 or so to have the suit tossed out on jurisdictional grounds. They did not bother, and I see the logic in that. (If they had, Spamhaus would likely have been able to get costs and/or sanctions, either for that effort or for any future improperly-venued actions.) Even if someone from Spamhaus could be properly served while on US territory, this was a civil action -- unless the

Re:

[AndroidCat]

they could have spent the $10,000 or so to have the suit tossed out on jurisdictional grounds.

Do you think the spammers would have stopped with one case then? They're spammers.

If they had, Spamhaus would likely have been able to get costs and/or sanctions

Spammers are also experienced at setting up corporate shells with no assets to collect. Spamhaus could probably eventually blow through that cheesy firewalling, but after how much in legal costs?

Before any evidence is heard, the plaintiff has to establi

Re:

[innocent_white_lamb]

If Spamhaus were worried that any of their people might get served in the US, they could have spent the $10,000 or so to have the suit tossed out on jurisdictional grounds.

Why? I suspect that Spamhaus has better things to spend $10,000 on than a lawyer's bill in another country.

If you were suddenly served with a summons to appear in court in Mogadishu, would you immediately hire a Somali lawyer and send him $10,000 to defend you? Or would you, like most of us, simply say, "Ridiculous!" an

Re:

[budgenator]

Well in most cases what you have to do is actually read the law, most start out something like "it is illegal for anyone in the United States to ...." and if that's the case your right the US can't impose jurisdiction; on the other hand if the law reads "it is illegal for anyone to ...." and a SEAL team snatches your ass off the street in your country and when the blindfold comes off your in the United States your screwed! Don't forget if the US is going to spend that kind of resources on you, there are pr

Re:

[EveLibertine]

Arguing the merits of the case would have been an admission of jurisdiction on Spamhaus' part. This is old anyway.

Also, they weren't forced to delist the company. That was part of the original ruling, and apparently it went to the the feds to appeal to ICANN to have them delisted, and ICANN responded that not only were they incapable of doing so, but it wasn't their responsibility either. It would be up to the domain registrars to delist them. To add further complexity to this issue, Spamhaus' registrar is

Re:

[EveLibertine]

This is old anyway.

Should read: "This is old news anyway"

Read these: http://arstechnica.com/search.ars?Tag=spamhaus/ [arstechnica.com]

Broken link in TFA to spammer's site

[AndroidCat]

For some reason, TFA has a rogue space in the link to the spammer's press release [e360insight.com]

"The court's ruling today is an important step in defending the rights of legitimate marketers," said Dave Linhardt, e360's President and Founder. "Amazingly, Spamhaus continues to believe it can operate above the laws of the United States. Based on Mr. Linford's refusal to comply with the permanent injuction, it is my opinion that Spamhaus is nothing more than a vigilante, cyber terrorist orgainzation with a dangerous God com

Re:

[CrazyDuke]

Oh, I see Baghdad Bob landed on his feet.

Re:

[hutchike]

"Amazingly, Spamhaus continues to believe it can operate above the laws of the United States..."

Last time I checked, US laws mostly only apply inside the US, but maybe the Bush-empire grew while I was sleeping?

Re:

[llefler]

Last time I checked, US laws mostly only apply inside the US, but maybe the Bush-empire grew while I was sleeping?

Apparently it has. We now have this little vacation spot in Cuba.

So much spam...

[BrownLeopard]

so little bread...

Did Spamhaus actually pay?

[walterbyrd]

I know spamhaus technically lost, but did they pay? If Spamhaus decided not to pay, what could e360 do?

Re:

[MadMidnightBomber]

Spamhaus didn't pay, and nor will they.

e360 is a spammer, and they will never obtain judgment against Spamhaus in a UK court. (Because they are a spammer. So sue me, e360.)

Re:

[someone1234]

Nevertheless, any Spamhaus employee risks their freedom by entering the USA till this ridiculous ruling holds.

Re:

[Wire3117]

no. the suit is not receivable in Germany.

Re:

[Wire3117]

err. UK

Comments all about the wrong story!

[frdmfghtr]

Wow, I read through the comments posted so far, and in 3-1/2 hours, only one [slashdot.org] talks about the Silverstein v. e360 lawsuit, which is the article posted (lending proof that Slashdotters don't RTFA) :).

All the comments are on the e360 v. Spamhaus suit. Understandable, since the summary doesn't even talk about the linked article either.

Re:

[Mindragon]

I doubt anyone will read this as it is already OldNews(TM). But I find cases where folks sue over 87 pieces of email to be discouraging. As an ISP myself, I have to constantly monitor the emails and what my own customers are doing to ensure that no spam is going out. We're signed up to the different Spam reporting systems from AOL, Yahoo, MSN and others. When someone clicks on "THIS IS SPAM!!!!" we know about it. More than not, the majority (over 90%) of the reported "THIS IS SPAM!!!!" are things like noti

Re:

[ahodgson]

You can imagine all you want, but the fact is is that e360 are long-time spammers, spammers as in send all the UCE they can to people who never asked for it. They are not being sued for e-commerce confirmation notices. They are being sued because they are spamming scum.

Re:

[nuzak]

The law firm handling Silverstein's suit posted on SPAM-L trumpeting the news and linked to their filing. It reads like it was written by a Slashdot editor. It's one guy who wants to represent himself as a service provider (perhaps his wife gets her mail from his system, who knows) and hired a bunch of divorce lawyers for the suit. Normally I wouldn't lay very good odds on him, but e360's Dave Linhardt (e360 *is* Linhardt, it's just one lone chickenbone spammer) has quite a history of shooting his mouth

Re:

[www.sorehands.com]

My wife does not get e-mail through my service. I provide free service to some non-profit groups. I also provide service to some models, law firms and individuals. Under the law, I am an ISP.

You have to keep in mind that divorce lawyers do have the background of finding assets that a spouse has hidden or transferred to the spouse's lover.

Even so, with this firm, I have not lost a motion, even against competent attorneys.

Careful what you say online about E360...

[merc]

The Usenet newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.email (aka, NANAE) is wonderful for watching E360INSIGHT's Lindtard CEO try and support their suit against Spamhaus, as well as read Spamhaus' Steve Linford rationally explain themselves. Various posters to that newsgroup have outed E360 for spams they have received in the past and present.

Recently E360INSIGHT have filed a suit against those same people, likely for defamation (or libel, not sure). However it's worth noting that they feel they can use the law to suppress anyone who wishes to refer to them as spammers.

The old saying still rings true, that spam is continually being redefined by the spammers as "that which we do not do".

http://spamresource.googlepages.com/e360vFerguson. pdf [googlepages.com]

Re:

[XSforMe]

"Recently E360INSIGHT have filed a suit against those same people, likely for defamation (or libel, not sure)."

Well, then make sure you call them by their name: "SPAMMERS [e360insight.com]

Re:

[Antique Geekmeister]

This is confusing. Russia right now is a big *source* of spammer operations that infest Windows machines and lease time on them to spamming companies. They have sharp programmers and no enforcement of computer security abuses to speak of, and an active criminal underground to launder the money through.

Killing them doesn't seem to be all that helpful so far.

Re:

[AndroidCat]

The US isn't scorelesss however. Two Spammers Murdered in New Jersey [slashdot.org] October 30th, 1999.

It depends who dies offcourse!

[nietsch]

No, you are right in that sense. Killing is worse than spamming. But that does not prevent me from making jokes about it? But don't dawdle, the USSR is get much further ahead of you! Something must be done! Think of the children!

Re:

[AJWM]

Killing is worse than spamming.

That's arguable. In terms of aggregate life-minutes lost, spamming is probably a lot worse than a couple of killings.

(Take a 75 year lifespan, that's 60*24*365*75 = 39,420,000 minutes. Send enough spam that 10 million people spend 5 minutes each dealing with it, that's 50,000,000 minutes lost. And there's a lot more spam than that.)

Re:

[asninn]

I don't think that's a valid argument: you're assuming that the effects scale linearly with the amount of time "stolen", and that's not true. In other words, if f is an evaluation function that maps the "objective" severity of the crime (e.g., the amount of time or money stolen) to the "subjective" severity (i.e., the effect it has on the victim), then you're basically assuming that f(a) + f(b) = f(a+b) (that f is a homomorphism), but there is no a priori reason why it would be.

In fact, I think the fact th

Re:

[AJWM]

Subjective severity is irrelevant: once a murder has happened, the victim doesn't care at all.