You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by ha...@t-online.de on 2006/10/11 08:16:18 UTC

Re: Any comments of the SpamHaus lawsuit? 


Hi,

quite frankly: mis-listings occur .... but if a domain remains blacklisted after a court case, it
must be for a reason :)
As an email user, I dont want to have to find out that reason :(
As a non-american, I can see this as a "vote with your feet" case .... stop buying US
products

Wolfgang Hamann

Re: Any comments of the SpamHaus lawsuit?

Posted by Bill Horne <sa...@billhorne.homelinux.org>.
On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 06:16 +0000, hamann.w@t-online.de wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> quite frankly: mis-listings occur .... but if a domain remains blacklisted after a court case, it
> must be for a reason :)
> As an email user, I dont want to have to find out that reason :(
> As a non-american, I can see this as a "vote with your feet" case .... stop buying US
> products
> 
> Wolfgang Hamann
> 

It's hard to stop buying US products, or UK products, or any particular
nation's products: everybody is selling things to everybody else, and
the computer in your "German" car might come from Malaysia, Texas,
Japan, or Singapore. The list goes on.

I suggest a different approach: organize your friends, coworkers, and
neighbors to get your own government involved: after all, if a U.S.
court can dictate the actions of a UK company, then it should be able to
do so in other countries.

FWIW.

Bill Horne

RE: Any comments of the SpamHaus lawsuit?

Posted by Bill Horne <sa...@billhorne.homelinux.org>.
On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 09:23 -0400, Coffey, Neal wrote:
> [snip]

> SpamHaus took on more responsibility than they'd like to admit.
> Unfortunately, this bit of the story isn't widely reported.  Here's the
> best reference I could find, from the blog of an Illinois lawyer:
> 
> http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/664

>>From the article:

        "As lawyers always do, let me caveat this with the usual
        disclaimers: I know only the bare minimum of details about the
        case, this message should not be construed in any way as legal
        advice, and no one should mistake me for a qualified trial
        lawyer. As someone, probably a law professor, once said: those
        who can do, do; those who can’t, teach."
        
>>From my mother:

        "... and those who can't teach, teach teachers" ;-)
        
> "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, [...] doing so
> inherently acknowledged the jurisdiction of the federal court."
> 
> Basically, SpamHaus said "Hey, you don't have jurisdiction, the Federal
> courts do!"  Then, when the case went to the Federal courts, SpamHaus
> said "Wait...you don't either!"  Which doesn't work.
> 
> That being said, I'm definitely on SpamHaus' side of the case in every
> legal and moral sense.  It's unfortunate that they may have screwed
> themselves.

Well, the dillemma is now clear: have a public presence and risk SLAPP
suits, or join SPEWS and put up with getting your email via NANAB. Seems
like an easy choice to me.

Bill

RE: Any comments of the SpamHaus lawsuit?

Posted by "Coffey, Neal" <nc...@langeveld.com>.
hamann.w@t-online.de wrote:

> As a non-american, I can see this as a "vote with your feet" case
> .... stop buying US products

That seems a bit harsh a reaction to take towards the preliminary
decision in a case that hasn't been concluded yet, and can still be
appealed.

Besides, SpamHaus took on more responsibility than they'd like to admit.
Unfortunately, this bit of the story isn't widely reported.  Here's the
best reference I could find, from the blog of an Illinois lawyer:

http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/664
"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, [...] doing so
inherently acknowledged the jurisdiction of the federal court."

Basically, SpamHaus said "Hey, you don't have jurisdiction, the Federal
courts do!"  Then, when the case went to the Federal courts, SpamHaus
said "Wait...you don't either!"  Which doesn't work.

That being said, I'm definitely on SpamHaus' side of the case in every
legal and moral sense.  It's unfortunate that they may have screwed
themselves.