RE: Spamhaus Ignores U.S. Court?

["Gary Funck" <gary () intrepid com>]

Randal M. wrote (in part):
> The one owner sues this service because it disrupts his business. The said
> business operates under law in another country. The Service operates under
> the laws of another country.

Althouugh there is a valid meta-issue here regarding jurisdiction,
this particular case may not be the best one to test that issue.
The businesses using Spamhaus do so on a voluntary basis.  It is those
"customers" of Spamhaus that choose to block e360insight.  A likely
majority of sites using blacklists also implement whitelists -- if a
vocal group of users within the business demanded to continue to
receive spam from e360insight, the admins might respond by either
whitelisting it for all, or just those users who request it.

So, it isn't Spamhaus doing the blocking -- it is the users of Spamhaus.

As contrast, our e-mail software blocks all incoming mail from China
and Korea.  Draconian for sure.  But for our small business, we can do
that because 100% of the mail (and there is a lot of it) that we
receive from those two regions is SPAM.  Should some enterprising
spammer who happens to also have a presence in the US, be able to
succesfully sue the organization that compiled the "country list"
that we use because it impacts their business?

Of course, e360insight couldn't be more delighted:
http://www.e360insight.com/


Here's spamhaus's technical scoop on e360insight:
http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/evidence.lasso?rokso_id=ROK7008


e360insight's SPAM partners are now barraging abuse desks
sending out the word of the recent [ed: mis-]judgement:
http://www.spamhaus.org/organization/alert-200609161.html

A ROKSO-listed spammer (William L. Stanley) is spamming a large amount of
Internet Service Providers' abuse and support desks with spams giving notice
of an invalid Illinois (U.S.) court ruling and legal threats to Internet
Service Providers that they "will be next" if they block spam from
Spamhaus-listed spammers.

If you have received such spam with threats to your company or network,
please do not respond to it. The spammer has additionally set the 'reply-to'
address to a spamhaus.org address to pretend the spam is sent by Spamhaus.

An Illinois court without jurisdiction has indeed entered a no-defence
default ruling against Spamhaus. The default ruling is invalid and in no way
affects Spamhaus. For further infomation see:
http://www.spamhaus.org/legal/answer.lasso?ref=3


_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.