|
Email Comments, Questions and Miscellaneous Share your opinion of the email service you're using. Post general email questions and discussions that don't fit elsewhere. |
|
Thread Tools |
6 Sep 2007, 02:01 AM | #1 |
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 |
= 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). |
6 Sep 2007, 06:41 AM | #3 | |
Ultimate Contributor
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada.
Posts: 10,355
|
Quote:
http://www.spamhaus.org/position/CAN-SPAM_Act_2003.html |
|
6 Sep 2007, 06:58 AM | #4 | |
= Permanently banned =
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 1 Microsoft Way
Posts: 2,119
|
Quote:
At any rate, this argument is kind useless.... why argue over something so trivial? |
|
6 Sep 2007, 07:22 AM | #5 | |
Ultimate Contributor
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada.
Posts: 10,355
|
Quote:
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. |
|
6 Sep 2007, 10:41 AM | #6 | ||
Intergalactic Postmaster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 5,485
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
6 Sep 2007, 10:59 AM | #7 | |
= Permanently banned =
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 1 Microsoft Way
Posts: 2,119
|
Quote:
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. |
|
6 Sep 2007, 11:05 AM | #8 | |
Ultimate Contributor
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada.
Posts: 10,355
|
Quote:
|
|
6 Sep 2007, 11:06 AM | #9 |
Intergalactic Postmaster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 5,485
|
|
6 Sep 2007, 11:14 AM | #10 |
Intergalactic Postmaster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 5,485
|
If you want to keep contradicting yourself, David, be my guest.
|
7 Sep 2007, 05:04 AM | #11 |
Master of the @
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,877
|
Its good he lost!!!
Spammers are NO GOOD for anything! |
7 Sep 2007, 09:33 AM | #12 |
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. |