Spamhaus Decides To Fight For Its Right To Build A Spam List

from the crossing-the-pond dept

Following the loss in the Illinois case where a judge fined Spamhaus $11 million, and the proposed punishment of taking the site offline, Spamhaus has decided that it needs to get back into this lawsuit. It had mostly ignored the Illinois case, claiming that an Illinois court had no jurisdiction over a UK-based organization. However, with the threat of being shut down, Spamhaus has decided that it needs to play ball and will appeal the decision, though it’s likely that they’ll try to make the case that they are out of the court’s jurisdiction. The lawyers taking on the case, by the way, have apparently agreed to do so for free. Unfortunately, the fact that Spamhaus did eventually need to engage in the case (even if their legal help is free) might only encourage spammers to keep suing Spamhaus wherever they can to set up similar situations. It would be nice if there were an actual precedent that made it clear that keeping a list isn’t illegal.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Spamhaus Decides To Fight For Its Right To Build A Spam List”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Mike F.M says:

I say good luck

Good luck to Spamhaus. They are trying to do people a good service.

Also, the lawyers that are doing this for free must either really believe in their cause or need some publicity.

Maybe the lawyers realise that, if Spamhause loses, many more people will sue and as they would already know the case, they could be the ones that Spamhaus take on.

Nicko says:

Re: Re: Re:

Although laws and cases in other countries have some weight, they really don’t set the same precedence as a court case inside the same legal system. And Spamhaus really doesn’t have much to fear from lawsuits in the UK, since the UK has strict anti-spam laws.

So in reality their only real fears would be: possible problems if doing business in the US, and loss of the .org domain (which if they had political pull in the UK could really open up the whole ICANN/US control problem).

Now it probably would have been a good idea to have a lawyer send a letter to the court and the plaintiff explaining why they were not within that court’s legal jurisdiction and that this case needed to be remanded to the FTC, or filed in a UK court, directly after it was filed.

Gabriel Tane (profile) says:

Re: You guys are arguing the wrong point

“The comments here seem to not follow what happened in the case. Notice the words default judgment rather than guilty. Yeah, think about that before criticizing the judge.”

No, the correct points are being argued here… the points of jurisdiction. Yes it was a default judgment and not a guilty verdict (which, as I’ve learned is not applicable in a civil case), but the judge should have dismissed the case from the onset since it’s not in his jurisdiction.

Now, it’s possible that the judge is correct and that he does have jurisdiction. That’s what the appeal will show, if Spamhaus uses that defense route. My criticism of the judge stems from his decision to step in where jurisdiction is in question.

Personally, I’d like to see what kind of precedence is set here.

Matthew says:

Spamhaus isn't even the appropriate target

As stated, Spawmhaus just keeps a list of spammers. It has criteria to be met before someone makes that list, and it has criteria to get off that list.

The corporations and individuals who USE that list are the one’s responsible for the alleged spammer’s woes. Just like it is the user that is responsible for abusing a kind and gentle service, like eMule, to sample and distribute files.

However, the “weed at the roots” mentality — along with an individual’s refual to take responsibility for his or her own actions — makes these housekeeper companies easy targets. You, the plantiff, know you’re a spammer. No one wants your junk, and the fact that you have to try so hard to get anyone to look at it should be evidence against you.

We, the people, got email so our mailboxes wouldn’t be full of crap about sales and pills and ‘you may be the next…’ junk. We got cell phones to get away from telemarketers. And yet, because of the lack of imagination or innovation, the spammers and telemarkters flaunt their ill-gotten gains to sue us into attempts at submission. Whether they’re evil, or stupid, isn’t clear, but their goal is to make your life harder so they can earn a dollar.

I can only hope they quickly go the way of the snake-oil salesman.

Raymond Delien says:


As a network administrator I have looked for several RTBL and they all cost money.. SpamHaus is the only site that provides this information for free. Is that why theyae being targeted?? What about the Black list that every competant adminstrator in America keeps on their own servers? When we get spam from a single source I blacklist the hell out of them. There is too much at stack here for a Illinoise judge to give a judgement because he doesnt feel that spamhaus gave enought respect to his court. I have met my fair share of judges and this is more about spamhaus not playing ball than the facts I promise you.

Nathan (profile) says:

Contribute to the cause

If the law firm Jenner & Block is taking this on for free, I say they need to provide a way for us, the community that will benefit from their work, to voluntarily provide them some compensation. Maybe some free publicity? Cash donations? Discounts or coupons at our businesses? Anything we can do to help these guys fight the good fight. We need to support those that are going to stand up for us when it’s time. Good luck, Jenner & Block.

Trouble Maker says:

two cents worth

Let’s revisit this issue: I have a EULA that I maintain on my computers, in the legalese jargon there are stipulations for entities that installs intrusive software on my system(s) without my knowledge. In a nut shell it states that in doing so they unconditionally agree to the terms and conditions of the EULA and are in most case the agreement is for a rather large sum of monetary compensation. I know have provisions for Spammers and Phishers. In summery the clause states that they are welcome to send their unsolicited email to me but in doing so they agree that a monetary compensation for my processing fee for each item is established at $150.00 per item.

Some will say that my EULA will never work; I say if an Illinois court can sue a UK based company you need to think again.

Anonymous Coward says:

Judge needs to admit to making a mistake ...

Not only does the judge have no technical expertise …

He has refused to admit that he botched the case early on by allowing e360 to claim that Spamhaus did business in the US without any supporting proof. That allowed the case to continue to where it is now.

e360 should be held in contempt and fined for lying in court and Spamhaus should be cleared of all charges.

blake (user link) says:

Well -- Spamhaus ain't all that...

I really appreciate what RBLs and SBLs represent. A group of good samaritans getting together to pool their knowledge and create a list to be used as a resource to stop the spammers from abusing our networks.

Unfortunately, some companies (ISP, hosts, etc.) look at these lists as the ‘final decision’. As such, if Spamhaus decides (as they have in the past) to ignore complaints of improper classification – an ISP may use that to unilaterally shut down someone…

Spamhaus is not at fault for keeping a list – the ISPs, hosts, and other networks that rely soley on ‘easy,quick’ fixes to their spam problems ARE at fault.

Xiera says:

It's actually funny...

And the spammers are worried because they think people actually read their emails in the first place? Or maybe they truly believe in (not very) subliminal messages. Perhaps bombarding people with spam or annoying them until they give in is good business policy? What’s sad is that I have a really hard time believing that spam is successful, but it must be right? I mean, if these companies are going to continue taking the time to spam, -someone- must be buying, right? RIGHT?

Anyways, that has nothing to do with Spamhaus, just the whole issue of spam in general. Back on topic, however, it’s (very close to) free for a business to send out spam. It is. Consider the expense of other advertising. Spam is essentially free. I would guess that most of it is automated.

Okay, so Spamhaus is preventing you from spamming to reach X audience. Spend some f’ing money and advertise via A, B, C, or D methods. Not only will people not be as annoyed, but they will also have more respect for your company and will therefore be more willing to buy.

This isn’t the only place I’ve seen similar situations. In online video games, people whine when there is a change to some aspect of the gameplay. Just like I tell those people, ADJUST. I realise it takes less thought to whine to the authorities that your company can’t spam, but get over it and ADJUST.

It always annoys me that people think that rules should be geared specifically towards them. Get over yourselves.

DieSpamDie says:

Nobody forced anyone to use said spam filter. People that did sign up wanted the service. I don’t like getting tickets, I didn’t sign up for that service, yet no one is able to sue the government. Interesting how that works. Sue to take away things people want, but do nothing about things people dislike.

Good ol’ capitolist america strikes again.

My appologies for my fellow americans actions against spamhause for what it’s worth. They are idiots who cant get real jobs and make an honest living. Some day they will figure it out if they ever get smart enough.

My advice to spamhaus… declare banckruptcy today, form a new company with a different name, same employees, same products, same everything. Now illinois will have to sue the new company. When they do, change the name again. keep doing so until they run out of money. If they don’t run out of money, send out a spam email to all your customers asking for donations. Then buy the spam companies out and shut them down. Take all the spam servers, bot nets, and whatever else they use and smash them with a 2×4.

Gabriel Tane (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“I don’t like getting tickets, I didn’t sign up for that service, yet no one is able to sue the government.”

I assume you’re talking about traffic tickets. You don’t get to sign up for laws… unless you count voting. You don’t want tickets? Don’t break the law. That’s how you “sign out” of getting tickets.

DieSpamDie says:

Re: Re: Re:

“You don’t want tickets? Don’t break the law. That’s how you “sign out” of getting tickets.”

I realize this, it was an example… but to be more specific, I did not get to vote on it. I didn’t vote to put “Tickets” in place, nore did I get to vote on how much it would cost me if I did break the law.

The point is, if I sign up for a service in another country, no city, state, or country (exept the one it resides in) should be able to tell that service it can no longer be available to me just because it removes the ability for me to recieve other services that I didn’t sign up for but would otherwise be forced in to recieving. It brings to mind the good ol’ days of the gestapo. If the government wants to decide what services we can and can not sign up for, they better put it up for vote by the people for the sake of democracy and all that is decent.

But in the words of Minnesota District 2 Democratic senator Rod Skoe “Why let the people vote [on abortion], that’s why i’m here.” BTW: Rod supports abortion, I don’t, should he vote for me?

Gabriel Tane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:


You really are making an incorrect analogy with discussion about tickets. That’s not a service provided by anyone… it’s a punishment for a crime. You don’t get to decide what your punishment is. You can lobby for changes, but all of that is niether here nor there. It has nothing to do with Spamhaus and thier current legal entaglements.

Your comments about having a service available to you is correct, but you make it sound like the government is embargoing this. That’s not the case. This is one private company suing (for money) another company. The question in place is whether we (the U.S.) have the right to shut down a company in another country while these proceedings are underway (which is a common practice). The answer is no. And that is what will be sorted out once this judge’s decision is corrected. That’s the center of this whole thing: one judge stepped outside of his juridiction. And that will be sorted out. This isn’t the goverment trying to deny you the civil liberty of doing business with who you choose.

And, if ICANN does shut down the IP (or however that works) and that site is no longer accessable in the US, then find another. Or start your own. It’s a common misconception that convenience has to be handed to you on a silver platter. That’s not the “American Freedom” that is protected. The right to start your own black list is a freedom, as long as you do so legally.

Finally, thank you for the illustration on Senator Skoe’s stance. Unfortunatly, it has nothing to do with the argument. But, if you don’t like his stance, don’t vote for him. If you didn’t vote for him, and you want to work against him, get invovled with the appropriate lobby groups.

As an aside, his view on voting is as flawed as you intended to illustrate and I agree with you on that. But, still, it has nothing to do with this case.

Karl says:


The big issue here is that they’re trying to close down the through ICANN. Since ICANN is a US company they might have to comply. By doing so will cause huge problems. This will eventually cause the internet to have a break down because all the countries won’t trust the US to control all the domain names and will create there own .ORG/.COM/Etc… servers.

Personally I think the Judge who allowed it to go this far is not very smart or has no clue of what could happen. Allowing a known spammer (a big one too) to sue a company that help us keep our servers load low. It isn’t right; this should have never even been brought up in court.

Not to mention that it’s a UK base company being sued.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...