Spammer Losses Case in Appeal Court!

mail2me · 6 Sep 2007, 02:01 AM

I thought this case is pretty interesting. A spammer files a case against a company for being blacklised and actually wins the case simply for being in the USA! FastMail and Runbox better watch out and think twice before blacking listing anyone in USA since both are foreign.

However, the the decision was later tossed by someone finally sane in the US court system.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/1...y-Tossed-87264

theog · 6 Sep 2007, 06:10 AM

There are a lot of issues going on right now with our court system and how far their jurisdiction lies. This was one case... another was a domain issue from a gambling outfit in Europe... they were sued by some guy in either CA or TX and won since they thought US could not touch them.... well, the other party ended up getting the domain. Of course, they will win the domain back on appeal, but the point was they never showed up to fight the bogus process so they lost.....

Point is, how many small companies in the US have the resources to fly to say england to fight a case against their domain... or even email site (landing email page).

At any rate, we all knew they would win.... just a matter of going through the process. Scary right now in relation to ownership of our domains (which relate directly back to email systems since email does not exist without a domain to attach it to).

David · 6 Sep 2007, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theog

At any rate, we all knew they would win.... just a matter of going through the process. Scary right now in relation to ownership of our domains (which relate directly back to email systems since email does not exist without a domain to attach it to).

I was not so certain. Spam is regulated in the US, but it is not illegal to spam, if you are willing to follow the guidelines.

http://www.spamhaus.org/position/CAN-SPAM_Act_2003.html

theog · 6 Sep 2007, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

I was not so certain. Spam is regulated in the US, but it is not illegal to spam, if you are willing to follow the guidelines.

http://www.spamhaus.org/position/CAN-SPAM_Act_2003.html

Uh, it is illegal to spam in the US, if you are not following the guidelines.... that is what spamhaus contends... and the jurisdiction issue....

At any rate, this argument is kind useless.... why argue over something so trivial?

David · 6 Sep 2007, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theog

Uh, it is illegal to spam in the US, if you are not following the guidelines.... that is what spamhaus contends... and the jurisdiction issue....

At any rate, this argument is kind useless.... why argue over something so trivial?

I am not wanting to argue theog. I am just wanting to point out how the law (in the United States) protects those who wish to spam. The US 'Can-Spam' act gives spammers the full protection of the law (which is the real message of this thread)

The company in question were merely protecting their constitutional rights to spam (and had a good chance of winning this case) which is why sued Spamhaus in the first place.

xmailer · 6 Sep 2007, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

I am not wanting to argue theog. I am just wanting to point out how the law (in the United States) protects those who wish to spam. The US 'Can-Spam' act gives spammers the full protection of the law (which is the real message of this thread)

The company in question were merely protecting their constitutional rights to spam (and had a good chance of winning this case) which is why sued Spamhaus in the first place.

One complicating factor which might bring such a claim into question is that it seems that there may be no single, simple objective defintion of "spam". At least that might seem to be strongly suggested by one seemingly knowledgeable long-time contributor to these forums who seems to suggest that there may be a great deal of subjectivity involved in the very definition of what constututes spam.

Quote:

How can you honestly say to anyone (in good faith) what messages they should consider to be spam? - after all, most folk would not try to dictate to you, what messages (that you receive in your inbox) you should consider to be spam, only you can know that with any degree of certainty.

theog · 6 Sep 2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

I am not wanting to argue theog. I am just wanting to point out how the law (in the United States) protects those who wish to spam. The US 'Can-Spam' act gives spammers the full protection of the law (which is the real message of this thread)

The company in question were merely protecting their constitutional rights to spam (and had a good chance of winning this case) which is why sued Spamhaus in the first place.

True... but spamhaus contends they were working illegally, and not following the law set in the USA. That is why I don't understand the argument. Is it your argument that e360insight was not spamming?

I'm not on the "spamhaus bus" by any means... I've been on the tail-end of their system when they think you are a spammer. Oh... not fun.

xmailer, you are evil... I almost fell out my chair, holding my gut... I needed that.

David · 6 Sep 2007, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xmailer

One complicating factor which might bring such a claim into question is that it seems that there may be no single, simple objective defintion of "spam". At least that might seem to be strongly suggested by one seemingly knowledgeable long-time contributor to these forums who seems to suggest that there may be a great deal of subjectivity involved in the very definition of what constututes spam.

I wonder who that would be xmailer

If you want to keep on protecting spammers (by pretending you don't know what spam is) please feel free to do so. Most other email users know what spam is, and they are (seemingly) lacking of your vast knowledge and experience

xmailer · 6 Sep 2007, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theog

xmailer, you are evil... I almost fell out my chair, holding my gut... I needed that.

Out of thousands of forum members, I somewhat hoped maybe one or two might appreciate that.

xmailer · 6 Sep 2007, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

I wonder who that would be xmailer

If you want to keep on protecting spammers (by pretending you don't know what spam is) please feel free to do so. Most other email users know what spam is, and they are (seemingly) lacking of your vast knowledge and experience

If you want to keep contradicting yourself, David, be my guest.

Bamb0 · 7 Sep 2007, 05:04 AM

Its good he lost!!!

Spammers are NO GOOD for anything!

DrStrabismus · 7 Sep 2007, 09:33 AM

One strange aspect of this case is that the court accepted it had juristidiction, based on an assertion by the spammer that Spamhaus had an office in the state, which isn't true. It seems odd that that has had no consequences for them.

As I understand it the company are not standing on their right to spam, they claim to be an opt-in direct marketer. However, Spamhaus listed them after numerous complaints, and after their "opt-in" emails arrived in Spamhaus's private spam-trap addresses.

6 Sep 2007, 02:01 AM	#1
mail2me Master of the @ Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: California, USA Posts: 1,597	Spammer Losses Case in Appeal Court! I thought this case is pretty interesting. A spammer files a case against a company for being blacklised and actually wins the case simply for being in the USA! FastMail and Runbox better watch out and think twice before blacking listing anyone in USA since both are foreign. However, the the decision was later tossed by someone finally sane in the US court system. http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/1...y-Tossed-87264

6 Sep 2007, 06:10 AM	#2
theog = Permanently banned = Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: 1 Microsoft Way Posts: 2,119	There are a lot of issues going on right now with our court system and how far their jurisdiction lies. This was one case... another was a domain issue from a gambling outfit in Europe... they were sued by some guy in either CA or TX and won since they thought US could not touch them.... well, the other party ended up getting the domain. Of course, they will win the domain back on appeal, but the point was they never showed up to fight the bogus process so they lost..... Point is, how many small companies in the US have the resources to fly to say england to fight a case against their domain... or even email site (landing email page). At any rate, we all knew they would win.... just a matter of going through the process. Scary right now in relation to ownership of our domains (which relate directly back to email systems since email does not exist without a domain to attach it to).

7 Sep 2007, 05:04 AM	#11
Bamb0 Master of the @ Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: USA Posts: 1,874	Its good he lost!!! Spammers are NO GOOD for anything!

7 Sep 2007, 09:33 AM	#12
DrStrabismus The "e" in e-mail Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,804	One strange aspect of this case is that the court accepted it had juristidiction, based on an assertion by the spammer that Spamhaus had an office in the state, which isn't true. It seems odd that that has had no consequences for them. As I understand it the company are not standing on their right to spam, they claim to be an opt-in direct marketer. However, Spamhaus listed them after numerous complaints, and after their "opt-in" emails arrived in Spamhaus's private spam-trap addresses.