Spam Blackhole List Sued, Injunction Ordered
from the ah,-this-again dept
We've discussed multiple times in the past how some anti-spam blackhole lists seem to go too far in blacklisting sites without providing any recourse, leading to plenty of false positives -- however, does that mean they should be sued? We've seen spammers sue anti-spammers in the past, including the case in Texas where some spammers tried to pretend that because they complied with CAN SPAM it was illegal to block their spam, but the latest lawsuit is interesting, because the person in question (whether he can be called a spammer is apparently an open question) has convinced a judge to issue a temporary restraining order barring the blackhole list from including his IP. This seems pretty questionable. A blackhole list is just that: it's a list. What individuals or ISPs choose to do with that list is really up to them. It shouldn't be blamed on the list if people filter out those emails. We may complain that these blackhole lists do a poor job of responding to false positives, but really the problem is with those who rely too much on those lists, rather than the lists themselves. If the lists are doing a bad job, and blocking too many legit sites, than that news will get out, and the list will lose its usefulness.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
What individuals or ISPs choose to do with that list is really up to them. It shouldn't be blamed on the list if people filter out those emails.
This might possibly be called slander, depending on how the black hole list portrays itself and how it defines who is and isn't on the list.
If the lists are doing a bad job, and blocking too many legit sites, than that news will get out, and the list will lose its usefulness.
Very true. Especially in an open and non-monopolistic market where people can choose one product or service over another for its effectiveness and accuracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slander!?
Furthermore, lists are purely opt-in. Anyone using the list is aware of the risk of false positives. Anyone filtering has a right to filter on any basis he likes. Suing the list is like suing Microsoft or Apple or IBM for creating mail clients that allow filtering: it's incredibly stupid. The only (big!) difference is that Microsoft or Apple or IBM have more than enough resources to make sure the judge understands how stupid it is, while the blacklists don't. So they make easy targets for litigious senders of bulk e-mail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
What you are suggesting is that faulty products are the fault of the consumer not the maker. Yes, that is the idea meme that the makers want spread out there, but it is total and utter bull.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
To keep costs down they used a cable company modem so their ip was considered dynamic allthough it had not changed in years.
They were blacklisted. I had to change to a static ip from a dsl provider at 5 times the cost with 1/4 proformance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
So it's illegal to make lists?
What you are suggesting is that faulty products are the fault of the consumer not the maker. Yes, that is the idea meme that the makers want spread out there, but it is total and utter bull.
No. That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm saying that the ISPs are *misusing* the lists.
If the consumer *misuses* the product, then how is it the maker's fault?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Of course all that hangs on the nature of unfair inclusion. It's hardly unreasonable not to take people saying that they are not spammers completely at face value. But it is unreasonable either to ignore them, or to assume that the list owner has the monopoly on accurate information. If the person who thinks they have been unfairly treated wants an independent view, that's perfectly understandable. Ideally that wouldn't involve the courts - but it's not clear that there is a real alternative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Misusing" the list
Well done, Mike. You have just given us the perfect example of a straw man argument.
"If the consumer *misuses* the product, then how is it the maker's fault?"
If the consumer is using the list the way it's inteded to be used, how is the consumer "misusing" the list?
Products that cause injury when used as intended are defective. That's plain-old products-liability law, nothing new about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah the joys of mass mailing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Using the list to completely block out mail, rather than simply flag it is a misuse. The lists are intended to alert you to potential spam. ISPs that simply reject blackhole emails are misusing the list -- assuming that they're perfectly accurate when they're not. Flagging is better than outright rejection.
Either way, the lawsuit argument is ridiculous. No one has the right to email you. The end user has the right to decide whether or not they want to use a filter or not, and by choosing their ISPs that use filters, they're saying they want that -- and that they're willing to accept the occassional missed legitimate email.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
>the list -- assuming that they're perfectly accurate when they're not. Flagging is better
>than outright rejection.
No, flagging is NOT better. In fact it is far worse. Flagging leaves the mail in the receiver's
spam file, unseen, while a legitimate sender thinks it was delivered.
Rejecting the mail causes legitimate mailers to bounce it back to the legitimate senders, so they
can know it didn't get delivered.
Rejecting is far less harmful to legitimate senders
than flagging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misuse of Product
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
If the consumer *misuses* the product, then how is it the maker's fault?"
more bull. How is the user misusing the lists? The lists are incorrectly labeling someone as a spammer. Someone that takes the list at its word is "misusing " the list? Come on. You are just shifting the blame from the list maker to the list user.
The list maker is responsible for justifying his list. If it is a fake list then he should be held accountable. Just like any other product that is fake or broken or inaccurate.
Why defend these people, mike? They are clearly hurting innocent websites and are not helping in any way the fight against spam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
However, as I've made very clear, I don't think just because they create a bad list they deserve to be sued.
My point about "misuse" is two-fold. First, the lists should be used for flagging, not blocking. Second, it's the ISPs responsibility to know about the lists they're using.
I could easily createa blackhole list that has every IP address on it. Should I be sued? Well, no one would ever use such an RBL because it would suck. The problem is that ISPs are believing these RBLs are accurate when they're not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Put the blame where it belongs
Yes... on the spammers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Couple questions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spammers Eat Excrement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
spam black list
Ya wanna play step up to the plate. If you get hit by a ball then don't piss off the pitcher. Don't go hide behind your mommy's skirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: spam black list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spam
However, could it be slanderous/libleous to call a site a "Spam" site? Such an accusation could be damaging to the business potential of a site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blackhole Lists
What should replace it? Not sure, obviously it will mean more work or more money spent to achieve similar results, but the system borders on net vigilanteism right now, so something should be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blackhole Lists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blackhole Lists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spammers should be punished harshly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spammers should be punished harshly
There is face to face and telephone communication to ensure that people get life or death information.
There are some things that shouldn't be left into the void that is email. And if a hospital cannot understand that, then they shouldn't blame the spammers, they should blame themselves.
My doctors call me. My hospital hand carries important test results. One of the finest hospitals in NYC and indeed the USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spammers should be punished harshly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
block this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We had someone spam us then threaten to sue
This is the first time I've heard someone convince a judge the blocklist needed to be TRO'd. SPAMCOP's IP addresses drop off after 48 hours if not further SPAM is detected. I hear SPAMHAUS isn't so fair about getting people off their list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spamming so bad, calling someone a spammer wrongly
Sort of like saying "I saw Joe buying an adult movie, he must be a sex offender and so is everyone in his town because the cops didn't arrest him for it." Except they then just add thousands of homes to what people thought was a list of sex offenders and soon a town can't get jobs etc. Because their home address comes up on a sex offender list.
It is digital slandar in some cases, because there are no standards for why someone is on a list. And no way to get removed.
I think like domain names, ICANN needs to take the role of hosting any lists of bad IPs etc. Not anonymouse groups of geeks well meaning or power hungery that make up standards as they go.
Sue the list holder, and tell them clearly what is legal and not legal. That may be another solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spamming so bad, calling someone a spammer wro
So, yes, while we, PERSONALLY, have had problems with a few of these lists, who have even wrongfully put our IP address on the list, I find suing the list makers to be problematic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Go F yourselfs blackhole list morons. I hope to see you on the street one day. Sea Man Out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
spam
That "supply and demand" analogy doesnt really fit spam blacklists, though. Even though you might be inconvenienced by getting "sorb'd," are you really going to go to all the effort of switching ISP's for one or two sites? And even if you wanted to switch providers, odds are there isnt going to be much competition for you to switch to (if any). Where i am, Charter is the only game in town.
And if you pester your ISP to pester SORBS, theyll just ignore you. They could care less that 1% of their users cant access a couple sites. For them, its not worth the risk of accidentally unleashing more spam.
SORBS (et al) is an instance of well-meaning individuals just royally fucking things up... and then refusing to try and rectify the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: spam
After several weeks of trying to make SORBS understand the static IP address provided for us by BT are NOT dynamic (and BT insist they have asked for it to be delisted many times), I am at the end of my tether and contemplating a virtual Jihad againt these "people" (although I am not convinced they aren't some sort of AI gone mad!).
Even though Friends Reunited is a top 10 internet brand and a company actively known for its non-spam policy, we are still being made to suffer for the bullishness of these anti-spammers.
If you can't put the resources into the customer service side of the fight against spam (and believe me I hate it as much as the next email admin person) then you should not get involved because the negative impact of false positives is costing a lot of companies a lot of money, to say nothing of my grey hairs!
I appreciate the effort guys but you need to be more professional when you mess with people's messaging systems...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Try This List, Mike
However, as I've made very clear, I don't think just because they create a bad list they deserve to be sued.
So, Mike, if your name somehow ended up on the Megan's Law list of sex offenders, you wouldn't think the list maker deserved to be sued?
I don't have any problem with spammer lists. However, like any provider of a product, they are responsible for the quality of that product (even if they don't charge for it). If their product does harm to an innocent party, they certainly should be held liable.
As for ISPs misusing the list, I've heard of plenty of people and companies getting sued and losing for somebody misusing a product. Why do you think an opaque cardboard sun shade has the warning "Do not drive with sun shade in your windshield"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Try This List, Mike
47USC230:
(2) Civil liability. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of--
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
Evidence of spam:
http://groups.google.com/group/news.admin.net-abuse.sightings/search?q=freespeechstore&start=0&
Now you have to ask
1. is the blocking in good faith?
2. is the person breaking the standard set in (A)?
These are really the same question, if 2 is true 1 must be, if either is false both must fail. Lets argue the law and not how we feel about blacklisting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Try This List, Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Try This List, Mike
Whoa, talk about making the argument ridiculous. The sex offender list is a specific list with clear qualifications to get on it (be a convicted sex offender). Spam IP lists are nothing of the sort. Because spam is still very much in the eye of the beholder... er... receiver, it's perfectly reasonable to come up with all sorts of different lists without opening yourself up to lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
overly enthusiastic unresponsive blacklists
What exactly would be the point of a blacklist if the users of the list have to check everybody on the list?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SORBS
I don't care that SORBS has us listed, I do care that they will not communicate with you unless you pay them. F SORBS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SORBS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SORBS
I keep monitoring the mailserver in order to quickly detect when a blocklist is generating false positives. We block mail using 4 blocklists which we found (After research) to be reliable. I think all ISP's should monitor the blocklists they use. This simply because it are non-profit systems that block IP's that are in their opinion spam/exploit/virus-sources.
Blocklists aren't holy, they are maintained by humans. Every human has an opinion, and a blocklist reflects it's creator's opinion. Blocklists are usefull tools for reducing spam (and thus our bandwidth and other resources which aren't for free).
I feel a blocklist should not be sued for listing someone that in their opinion is a abusive host. Minor note about most blacklists I've come across: They all note they are not responsible for false positives, and if one disagrees, should not use the list.
The most famous "Do not use" list is BLARS. That's the only list our IP-range is on, because it was listed in a /16 netblock way before we got our own /24 netblock (in the range of the /16 block). BLARS never replied to a request, and BLARS asks a fee that is not financially acceptable for the small company I work for.
Just my 2 cents!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SORBS is rotten to the core
DON'T USE SORBS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep it up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spin from spammers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spam Lists
As to the people that say the government should control these blacklists. Is our court system fair? Innocent until proven guilty yet you get taken to jail and stay there until proven innocent. Even if you are innocent our government will do everything it can to lock you up. Should our government be given absolute power over the internet? I think not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Cole
Eats el weenio.
Kissa mya assa.
Gazorta
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesus is a MYTH, you idiots!
There IS no Jesus.
There WILL BE NO Jesus.
It was a myth. He was married. He had a kid. He didn't get resurrected. He was a rebel of the time. What a cute idea: let's blame the Jews forever for the death of a Jew which was caused by the Italians!
And let's have 'pictures' of this supposed Jesus and guess what? He looks like a Brit! Not like a swarthy, hooknosed Jew like the ones you like to hate.
C'mon assholes, read your ancient myths: like Leda and the Swan. The god figure has sex with a human and a 'special' child is born. Lots of cultures have the same myth. And you then kill and kill and kill Jesus' own people for 2000 years.
Christians, you are a bunch of morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorbs helps big corporations.
Whether they intend to be doing so or not, I can not say, Sorbs is assisting the big corporations stifle competition. If there is anyone else out there in the same situation we find ourselves in, or if you have been in this situation, please contact me at roger@gemm.com to inform me of whatever you have done successfully or to join together to seek some sort of legal remedy.
Also, I would be interested in receiving contact from any journalists who would find this worth shedding light on. I believe Google/Bing search results are also designed, possibly purposefully, to favor big corporations over struggling competitors. Let's join together and do something about it. -Roger Raffee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]