Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

[Steve Linford via mailop]

On 4 Aug 2020, at 04:29, John Levine via mailop  wrote:
> 
> In article <28453035-f078-4311-8472-1aa190c45...@isipp.com 
> > you write:
>> 
>> 
>> From the judgement:
>> 
>> "he plaintiff has shown that it has complied with the Hague Convention and 
>> personally served a representative authorized to accept service
>> of process in London."
> 
> The Spamhaus Project has not been located in the UK for a long time.
> Whoever the process server handed his paperwork to, it wasn't
> Spamhaus.
> 
> Ever since the E360 fiasco Spamhaus hasn't responded to US suits. They
> have no assets in the US, and while responding to tell the US court
> that it doesn't have jurisdiction is possible, it's expensive and not
> very productive.
> 
> They really do have their office in Andorra and could be served or
> sued there, but I doubt the kinds of organizations that are likely to
> sue them would make much headway in Andorran courts.
> 
> It is my impression that for this particular suit, Spamhaus wasn't
> even aware of it until someone noticed a press release.

What John said.

Regards,

  Steve Linford
  Chief Executive
  The Spamhaus Project
  https://www.spamhaus.org
  

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop]

> Another relevant piece of data. The organization that was named in the suit 
> and has received a permanent injunction against it has been voluntarily 
> dissolved and struck off the UK registry of companies. 
> 
> https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05303831
> 
> There is no one covered under this injunction as the entity does not exist. 

They still technically (at least nominally) seemed to have an agent for service 
in London, who was served in October, 2019;  Spamhaus didn't dissolve  that 
particular UK entity until March of 2020 (see 
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05303831), five months after they 
were (ostensibly) served in London.  Also, SpamhausTech still lists its address 
as being in London - so under the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil (i.e. 
a court may find that they can't claim they don't exist in the UK if they have 
an affiliated entity that does) they can/could have/may be able to enforce 
against them:  https://www.spamhaustech.com/privacy-policy/

Of course, this is all basically mooted by the fact that the final judgement 
was only for $1 as DBUSA never submitted a damages accounting, and they are in 
Chapter 11, so it seems highly unlikely that they are going to spend money to 
pursue this on the off chance that they might pervail.

Anne

--
Anne P. Mitchell,  Attorney at Law
Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] abrupt move of zsh.org, mail new flows [zero.zsh.org]

[Phil Pennock via mailop]

Folks,

The zsh.org project had to move hosting, including email, on a shorter
final timescale than ideal for things like IP warming, so had to go live
abruptly on its new addresses.  I'm helping out but not driving the
effort.  Some providers are blocking, so if you have manual allow-list
stuff, we'd appreciate an entry in those please.

The old hosting was in Australia with ezmlm, no DKIM, I think SPF might
have been in place.

The new hosting is in The Netherlands, Sympa, DKIM signing with SPF in
place, IPv4 and IPv6.  There's an entry in dnswl.org, there's various
other modern good stuff (as outlined by me recently).

  zero.zsh.org.

The big issue is probably simply that a new IP was sending email with no
notice and no warming.  Not what was wanted.

Thanks,
-Phil

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [External] Re: This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

[Kevin A. McGrail via mailop]

On 8/4/2020 12:24 PM, Rob Nagler via mailop wrote:
> It is actually more sinister than anybody realizes. I did some
> research into Charles "Charlie" Benn. 
>
> He is working on new technology  to
> get spam into the UK and the EU. He works undercover for a real estate
> company
>  (note
> that he doesn't appear 
> on their staff page).  I believe he's actually an Eastern European
> with bases in East London, ZA and Reading, UK. He falsely accepted
> service to undermine Spamhaus, which has been hunting him for years.

Oooh, the plot thickens!  I look forward to a Jason Bourne anti-spam movie.

Regards,

KAM

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

[Ken Simpson via mailop]

Curious. The document was served last September, if I'm reading it
correctly. Yet the organization was dissolved in March 2020. I suppose they
can enjoy the rich rewards of collecting from a dissolved entity in a
foreign country.

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 2:35 AM Laura Atkins via mailop 
wrote:

>
>
> On 4 Aug 2020, at 03:29, John Levine via mailop  wrote:
>
> In article <28453035-f078-4311-8472-1aa190c45...@isipp.com> you write:
>
>
>
> Did you not read what I quoted from the Spamhaus website? They are based
> in Switzerland and Andorra, not the UK. My assumption is that there is
> basically no chance of any U.S. ruling being enforced in either of these
> two countries, unless it is related to a serious crime.
>
>
> From the judgement:
>
> "he plaintiff has shown that it has complied with the Hague Convention and
> personally served a representative authorized to accept service
> of process in London."
>
>
> The Spamhaus Project has not been located in the UK for a long time.
> Whoever the process server handed his paperwork to, it wasn't
> Spamhaus.
>
>
> It was Mr. Charles Benn who, according to the service of process
> affidavit, was authorized to receive process on their behalf.
>
>
> https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16243626/6/databaseusacom-llc-v-the-spamhaus-project/
>
>
> Ever since the E360 fiasco Spamhaus hasn't responded to US suits. They
> have no assets in the US, and while responding to tell the US court
> that it doesn't have jurisdiction is possible, it's expensive and not
> very productive.
>
> They really do have their office in Andorra and could be served or
> sued there, but I doubt the kinds of organizations that are likely to
> sue them would make much headway in Andorran courts.
>
> It is my impression that for this particular suit, Spamhaus wasn't
> even aware of it until someone noticed a press release.
>
>
> Hah.
>
> Another relevant piece of data. The organization that was named in the
> suit and has received a permanent injunction against it has been
> voluntarily dissolved and struck off the UK registry of companies.
>
> https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05303831
>
> There is no one covered under this injunction as the entity does not
> exist.
>
> laura
>
> --
> Having an Email Crisis?  We can help! 800 823-9674
>
> Laura Atkins
> Word to the Wise
> la...@wordtothewise.com
> (650) 437-0741
>
> Email Delivery Blog: https://wordtothewise.com/blog
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>


-- 

Ken Simpson

CEO, MailChannels


Tel: +1 604 685 7488
Facebook   |  Twitter   |
LinkedIn  |  Help Center


Our latest case study video: watch here!

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

[Jay Hennigan via mailop]

On 8/4/20 09:24, Rob Nagler via mailop wrote:
It is actually more sinister than anybody realizes. I did some research 
into Charles "Charlie" Benn.


He is working on new technology  to get 
spam into the UK and the EU. 


RFC1149 has been around since 1990, not exactly what I'd call new 
technology.


--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

[Rob Nagler via mailop]

It is actually more sinister than anybody realizes. I did some research
into Charles "Charlie" Benn.

He is working on new technology  to get
spam into the UK and the EU. He works undercover for a real estate company
 (note that he
doesn't appear  on their
staff page).  I believe he's actually an Eastern European with bases in
East London, ZA and Reading, UK. He falsely accepted service to undermine
Spamhaus, which has been hunting him for years.

Rob
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

[Jay Hennigan via mailop]

On 8/4/20 06:07, Chris via mailop wrote:

On 2020-08-04 05:32, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote:

It was Mr. Charles Benn who, according to the service of process 
affidavit, was authorized to receive process on their behalf.


Actually, "Charlie Benn".

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16243626/6/databaseusacom-llc-v-the-spamhaus-project/ 



It's my impression that nobody has the slightest idea who this is, or 
why anyone would think this person is "authorized".


Reading between the lines about "virtual office" and "Communications 
House", it sounds like the UK equivalent of the guy behind the counter 
at a Mailboxes Etc. or UPS Store.


Note also that the process server didn't check the box stating that he 
served the summons.



--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case, Against The Spamhaus Project

[Joel M Snyder via mailop]

On 8/4/20 2:33 AM, mailop-requ...@mailop.org wrote:
> Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case
>   Against The Spamhaus Project

The astonishing thing about all this is that DatabaseUSA bothered to
dump thousands and thousands of dollars into lawyers to achieve a
completely null result.

Apparently, whatever law firm they hired did not appropriately advise
them that this was a completely useless endeavor and waste of resources,
or, alternatively, the client did not listen to this sage advice and
insisted on moving forward anyway.  In either case, yay for the
DatabaseUSA contribution to the US service economy!   No PPP required
for these lawyers!

I know that judges are not technical experts and this one probably just
wanted to get this off his docket as quickly as possible, but I would
have loved to be in the room watching if someone brought up the
databaseusa home page and he then asked "under what possible definition
of unsolicited bulk email does this company get excluded?"

Their lawyers were also quite clever in their wording of the complaint,
dropping the part about "unsolicited bulk email" and asserting that they
weren't phishing, 419 scamming, etc.  A nice omission which a defense
attorney would have jumped on but since there wasn't any.

Oh well.  I think that "concerning" is not the word.  I think that
"amusing" is the word.

jms

-- 
Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719
Senior Partner, Opus One   Phone: +1 520 324 0494
j...@opus1.comhttp://www.opus1.com/jms

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

[Chris via mailop]

On 2020-08-04 09:38, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote:



On 4 Aug 2020, at 14:07, Chris via mailop It's my impression that nobody has the slightest idea who this is, or 
why anyone would think this person is "authorized”.


Which means the process server committed perjury as this was a sworn 
affidavit.


Sure does.

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

[Laura Atkins via mailop]

> On 4 Aug 2020, at 14:07, Chris via mailop  wrote:
> 
> On 2020-08-04 05:32, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote:
> 
>> It was Mr. Charles Benn who, according to the service of process affidavit, 
>> was authorized to receive process on their behalf.
>> https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16243626/6/databaseusacom-llc-v-the-spamhaus-project/
> 
> It's my impression that nobody has the slightest idea who this is, or why 
> anyone would think this person is "authorized”.

Which means the process server committed perjury as this was a sworn affidavit. 

laura 



-- 
Having an Email Crisis?  We can help! 800 823-9674 

Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise
la...@wordtothewise.com
(650) 437-0741  

Email Delivery Blog: https://wordtothewise.com/blog 







___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

[Chris via mailop]

On 2020-08-04 05:32, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote:

It was Mr. Charles Benn who, according to the service of process 
affidavit, was authorized to receive process on their behalf.


https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16243626/6/databaseusacom-llc-v-the-spamhaus-project/


It's my impression that nobody has the slightest idea who this is, or 
why anyone would think this person is "authorized".


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Microsoft contact - JMRP issue

[Bressier Simon via mailop]

At least I have tried, thx Michael I will try to have that fixed somehow !

Le lun. 3 août 2020 à 20:32, Michael Wise via mailop
 a écrit :
>
>
>
> I'm really not in a position to assist with JMRP issues.
>
> You pretty much have to go thru the web-based resources.
>
>
>
> Aloha,
>
> Michael.
>
> --
>
> Michael J Wise
> Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis
>
> "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed."
>
> Open a ticket for Hotmail ?
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mailop  On Behalf Of Bressier Simon via 
> mailop
> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 8:30 AM
> To: Al Iverson 
> Cc: mailop 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [mailop] Microsoft contact - JMRP issue
>
>
>
> Hey,
>
>
>
> Yes the issue here is not the registration itself on JMRP for the /18, it 
> will be exploded indeed in /24. But the range is still partly enrolled on few 
> JMRP programs from the previous owner(s), and we can't enroll the range on 
> our own JMRP if that IPs are still on theirs.
>
> I've contacted the guys from that other companies... but dunno if I can 
> expect some help from them yet, or if that contact addresses are even still 
> in use.
>
>
>
> That's why it would be more efficient via a MS folk :)
>
>
>
>
>
> Le lun. 3 août 2020 à 17:12, Al Iverson  a écrit :
>
> >
>
> > If you want to learn from my past fumbling -- I register everything
>
> > with SNDS and JMRP as /24 (or smaller), nothing bigger. Once upon a
>
> > time I found that sometimes it seemed to treat a submission as though
>
> > it were only a /24 even though it was a larger range (/18 or /20).
>
> > That may/may not still be an issue, I have no idea, since long ago I
>
> > decided to treat every range as if it were /24 or smaller. Which means
>
> > you'd be entering it as 64 /24s instead of one /18, if I did my math
>
> > correctly. Fun? No. Does it work? Yes...I've not had any sort of issue
>
> > with JMRP for a long time.
>
> >
>
> > (Well, I've had two unrelated issues with JMRP periodically, not
>
> > related to this. One is, sometimes when we give a client access to
>
> > SNDS data, they try to modify the JRMP settings for a range. We warn
>
> > clients that we monitor for this and revoke access of anybody caught
>
> > doing this. Two, Proofpoint seemed to be eating new SNDS access
>
> > verification requests, but only for a new range in RIPE. Never figured
>
> > out why only those ranges were affected, but we were able to whitelist
>
> > around it.)
>
> >
>
> > You might have a hard time finding somebody at MS who can actually
>
> > assist with an SNDS/JMRP issue. Good luck!
>
> >
>
> > BTW, treating all your ranges as /24 makes doing IP allocation math
>
> > and feeding ranges to other services more simple, too. I now do it for
>
> > all ISP FBLs and registrations (CSA, WP.pl,. JMRP, Return Path
>
> > multi-FBL, etc.) and it means I no longer have to think about CIDR in
>
> > sizes other than /24 (and I don't have to worry about somebody else
>
> > being able to do the math, either).
>
> >
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Al Iverson
>
> >
>
> > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 5:38 AM Bressier Simon via mailop
>
> >  wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > Hey Michael or any other MS folk,
>
> > >
>
> > > Could you please contact me off list for some help on a JMRP program for 
> > > a /18 registration?
>
> > >
>
> > > Thank you very much in advance,
>
> > >
>
> > > Simon, Head of Deliverability at Sendinblue
>
> > > ___
>
> > > mailop mailing list
>
> > > mailop@mailop.org
>
> > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fch
>
> > > illi.nosignal.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmailopdata=0
>
> > > 2%7C01%7Cmichael.wise%40microsoft.com%7C169cabe96aad409ec02c08d837c2
>
> > > ae88%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637320656581702539
>
> > > sdata=RKBx6s0r07%2BJztHpdLzjGRh2zDxCUIZJXNFb7FIstN0%3Drese
>
> > > rved=0
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > Al Iverson // Wombatmail // Chicago
>
> > Song a day!
>
> > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
>
> > wombatmail.com%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Cmichael.wise%40microsoft.com%7C16
>
> > 9cabe96aad409ec02c08d837c2ae88%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%
>
> > 7C0%7C637320656581702539sdata=7HR86sAYlQymUp1UssW3mlRS%2BINFD4q%2
>
> > FJMC9HPeV4ig%3Dreserved=0 Deliverability!
>
> > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fspam
>
> > resource.com%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Cmichael.wise%40microsoft.com%7C169c
>
> > abe96aad409ec02c08d837c2ae88%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C
>
> > 0%7C637320656581702539sdata=0jxNIfjEIKFAU9iQEYOo1PlTxwFmcJdzSwrj9
>
> > yarKOg%3Dreserved=0 And DNS Tools too!
>
> > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fxnnd
>
> > .com%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Cmichael.wise%40microsoft.com%7C169cabe96aad
>
> > 409ec02c08d837c2ae88%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C6373
>
> > 20656581702539sdata=QChDNUwAmiuDHYBEhx0d5FWB964wKjNgjd1wmHqN4j0%3
>
> > Dreserved=0
>
>
>
> 

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

[Laura Atkins via mailop]

> On 4 Aug 2020, at 03:29, John Levine via mailop  wrote:
> 
> In article <28453035-f078-4311-8472-1aa190c45...@isipp.com> you write:
>> 
>> 
>>> Did you not read what I quoted from the Spamhaus website? They are based
>>> in Switzerland and Andorra, not the UK. My assumption is that there is
>>> basically no chance of any U.S. ruling being enforced in either of these
>>> two countries, unless it is related to a serious crime.
>> 
>> From the judgement:
>> 
>> "he plaintiff has shown that it has complied with the Hague Convention and 
>> personally served a representative authorized to accept service
>> of process in London."
> 
> The Spamhaus Project has not been located in the UK for a long time.
> Whoever the process server handed his paperwork to, it wasn't
> Spamhaus.

It was Mr. Charles Benn who, according to the service of process affidavit, was 
authorized to receive process on their behalf. 

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16243626/6/databaseusacom-llc-v-the-spamhaus-project/
 



> Ever since the E360 fiasco Spamhaus hasn't responded to US suits. They
> have no assets in the US, and while responding to tell the US court
> that it doesn't have jurisdiction is possible, it's expensive and not
> very productive.
> 
> They really do have their office in Andorra and could be served or
> sued there, but I doubt the kinds of organizations that are likely to
> sue them would make much headway in Andorran courts.
> 
> It is my impression that for this particular suit, Spamhaus wasn't
> even aware of it until someone noticed a press release.

Hah.

Another relevant piece of data. The organization that was named in the suit and 
has received a permanent injunction against it has been voluntarily dissolved 
and struck off the UK registry of companies. 

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05303831

There is no one covered under this injunction as the entity does not exist. 

laura 

-- 
Having an Email Crisis?  We can help! 800 823-9674 

Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise
la...@wordtothewise.com
(650) 437-0741  

Email Delivery Blog: https://wordtothewise.com/blog 







___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: MUAs and webmail services

[Edgaras Lukoševičius via mailop]

I 100% agree, that having this information earlier is beneficial. 
Anyway, having iPhone/Mac OS X/iPad Mail, Microsoft Outlook, 
Thunderbird, and others sending ID only after authentication kind of 
leaves everyone in the dark.



On 2020-07-30 20:10, Brandon Long wrote:
There's nothing that prevents a server from holding onto the ID and 
logging it after login if you think you don't want it from before for 
some reason.


or, if you're really concerned with too much logging from non-signed 
in sessions, then implement an actual rate limit instead of just never 
logging them.


There is definite utility in having the information earlier.

Brandon

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 9:31 AM Andrew C Aitchison via mailop 
mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote:


On Thu, 30 Jul 2020, Edgaras Lukoševičius via mailop wrote:

> I have started digging after your response, and they are sending
ID! But they
> are sending ID before authentication, our IMAP proxy seems to be
dropping ID
> command if user is not authenticated.

> So that behavior seems legitimate, but in my opinion ID should
be sent after
> authenticating.

Useful to have that info when users report authentication failures.

-- 
Andrew C. Aitchison  Kendal, UK

and...@aitchison.me.uk

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org 
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop