Posted on 09/15/2006 3:43:51 PM PDT by SmithL
CHICAGO -- The head of an organization that fights unwanted bulk e-mail said Friday that an Illinois company will remain on its block list despite a court order and a steep monetary judgment.
A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the Spamhaus Project, an international anti-spam organization, to pay $11.7 million in damages to Wheeling-based e360 Insight LLC for blacklisting the company.
U.S. District Judge Charles Kocoras also ordered Spamhaus to post a notice on its Web site stating that e360 Insight is not a spammer.
The judge's order noted that Spamhaus initially defended the case, but then withdrew. Without a challenge from Spamhaus, the judge wrote, "we find that Spamhaus has wrongfully placed Plaintiffs on its blacklist of companies who have sent spam e-mail."
Spamhaus suggested it did not defend the case because it did not believe a court in Illinois had jurisdiction over the U.K.-based organization.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I like spam, especially with Jarlsberg cheese slices on wheat toast.
pkill -9 spam
Spammers lie.
I hate spam, public floggings of proven spammers would be appropriate!
They often sell or convey the email to others covered by the fine print of an opt in to receive announcements. If that happens once, the spam will come like a chain letter forever.
When you go to a web site where you actually need something, often a series of prechecked boxes pop up with a misleading description like "Yes I am willing to receive emails from selected associated businesses".
Unless you are alert and uncheck them, *shazam* you are deemed to have "requested" it.
Lying is not the term I would use. @&#*#^@%@$#)(*@ is more like it.
Anyone that sends spam should be charged with felonies and every asset they have confiscated.
If I had a nickel for every time a spammer claimed I "opted-in" to their bulldada, I'd be able to pay off the national debt and have enough left over to buy everyone on this forum a Six-Dollar Burger combo at Carl's Jr.
Of those, on average about 40,000+ per day are blocked outright thanks to the VERY wonderful xbl-sbl Spamhaus blacklist.
We rarely get a complaint about a false-positive where some innocent fella is blocked, and in those cases, Spamhaus is very good at un-blacklisting people.
In other words, the reason this spammer went after Spamhaus is because it's so effective at blocking spam!
This also isn't the first time some spammer has attacked the blacklists... Maybe it's one of the first *legal* attempts though. Spammers in the past have launched huge denial-of-service attacks on blacklist servers.
Blocklists do not BLOCK spam spigots.
They are merely lists that local admins may use to control WHAT COMES ONTO THEIR OWN PROPERTY.
It is as if you were visiting a city, and the Tourist Guide said, "Avoid the High Crime southeast corner of town".
YOU may then, individually decide if you want to go there, or not.
The Tourist Guide did not block you from going there.
My Daughter-In-Law gave her cell phone number to an on line business without reading the small print, which said ,in effect, we will give your number to anybody we want to and by giving it to us you agree to that.
It pays to read the small print. She had to have her number changed she was getting so many spam calls.
This judge reminds me of the time Teddy Kennedy (I believe it was) heard the term "information highway" and suggested legislation was needed to keep people from drinking and using the information highway.
At another point there was actually a proposal at the federal level to make it a crime to be under the influence of adult beverages and go online.
It would be funny if their ignorance was not so dangerous.
The trouble with spam is that once it starts your email will never be clean again. You might as well close it and start again and hope no one who has your email gives it out.
Wow, we used to joke about drunken telecomming way back in the .....hmmm...1200 Baud Era.
Well, shoot, at 1200 baud you could be semi comatose and keep up with the net. You almost had to be drunk to stand the tediousness.
Sounds like one of those "Free" Ringtone places.
Listen. Save her lots of trouble, and print this in 72 Point Type in fluorescent red:
The respected magazine PC Computing was overcome by an attack of pranking fever in 1994 when it published an article describing a bill before the U.S. Congress. SB 040194 would make it a crime to use the Internet while intoxicated or to discuss sexual matters online. Blaming the term 'Information Superhighway' for the legislators' zeal on this issue, the article's author explained "Congress apparently thinks being drunk on a highway is bad no matter what kind of highway it is."
Let me say in my defense that it is the kind of absurdity we have come to expect from the federal government, thus making it very believable.
No onions on my buger, please.
buger? Burger!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.