Re: R: R: Re[4]: Any comments of the SpamHaus lawsuit?
On Monday, October 23, 2006, 7:07:43 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote: GT> I would have much more preferred a statement like: 'we can't GT> handle this case since it crosses U.S. borders', but GT> anyway... Me too, but because Spamhaus did not ask that the case be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, that was not an issue that the court had an opportunity to decide. -- Best regards, Robert Braver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
R: R: Re[4]: Any comments of the SpamHaus lawsuit?
> GT> That's not so good, whether confirmed: it would mean that the > GT> court recognized that Spamhaus is actually running some > GT> unlawful ... > > No, it only means that Spamhaus abandoned the case and allowed a > default judgment and injunction to be entered against it. > > A default judgment is not a determination on the merits. Well, I don't know: you're probably right. I would have much more preferred a statement like: 'we can't handle this case since it crosses U.S. borders', but anyway... giampaolo > -- > Best regards, > Robert Braver > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: R: Re[4]: Any comments of the SpamHaus lawsuit?
On Monday, October 23, 2006, 5:11:43 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote: GT> That's not so good, whether confirmed: it would mean that the GT> court recognized that Spamhaus is actually running some GT> unlawful ... No, it only means that Spamhaus abandoned the case and allowed a default judgment and injunction to be entered against it. A default judgment is not a determination on the merits. -- Best regards, Robert Braver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
R: Re[4]: Any comments of the SpamHaus lawsuit?
> But Kocoras said Thursday that the requested action was too broad and > would cut off all lawful online activities of Spamhaus, not just those > targeted by any court order. That's not so good, whether confirmed: it would mean that the court recognized that Spamhaus is actually running some unlawful activity... giampaolo
Re: Re[4]: Any comments of the SpamHaus lawsuit?
I got this on my google alerts Can anyone confirm http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/technology/15809465.htm CHICAGO - A federal judge presiding over a spam dispute rejected a marketing company's request to suspend the domain name of an anti-spam group that ignored an $11.7 million judgment against it. U.S. District Court Judge Charles P. Kocoras denied a proposed motion from e360 Insight, which sued the Spamhaus Project over its "black list" of spammers. Wheeling, Ill.-based e360 Insight contends it is improperly on the list because it is a direct marketer that does not send unsolicited e-mail. The Spamhaus Project did not bother defending itself and refused to recognize Kocoras' $11.7 million judgment against it, saying the court had no jurisdiction over the U.K.-based group. So e360 Insight asked that the judge order the spamhaus.org domain suspended. But Kocoras said Thursday that the requested action was too broad and would cut off all lawful online activities of Spamhaus, not just those targeted by any court order. Service providers and others use Spamhaus' list to help identify which messages to block, send to a "junk" folder or accept. Spamhaus claims that more than 650 million Internet users benefit from its list of spammers.
Re[4]: Any comments of the SpamHaus lawsuit?
On Sunday, October 15, 2006, 5:21:38 PM, R Lists06 wrote: >> Blame the plaintiffs, blame what some might consider to be >> less-than-stellar legal advice given Spamhaus, but don't blame the >> court for following the law. >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Robert Braver RL> Why blame the plaintiffs? The plaintiffs are the parties who filed the lawsuit against Spamhaus. I'm not familiar with the merits of their case, nor was there ever a determination on the merits in this case. Spamhaus walked away from the proceedings, allowing a default judgement to be entered against it. However, Spamhaus has a great deal of credibility as far as I'm concerned, and I have been hauled to court more than once by vindictive "electronic marketing entrepreneurs" making similar claims, so I tend to take it on faith that Spamhaus was publishing accurate information, and therefore the plaintiff's case had no merit. RL> Fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be, law is subject to RL> interpretation based upon precedent, or lack thereof. RL> As is authority and jurisdiction. RL> Plus, people are fallible, make mistakes. Judges too. RL> Then what? Huh? -- Best regards, Robert Braver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
