Judge Won't Shut Down Spamhaus
from the too-extreme dept
While Spamhaus has finally agreed to get involved in the lawsuit it lost by not showing up, there was plenty of concern about whether or not the judge would follow the plaintiff's recommendation that the court demand ICANN (or someone else) pull Spamhaus' domain name. Turns out there's nothing to worry about. Michael Geist points to a posting on the ICANN site that the judge has denied the request from e360, saying that the punishment was "too broad to be warranted under the circumstances." Beyond that, the judge noted that ICANN (and registrar Tucows) have nothing to do with Spamhaus and therefore, it had no right to bring them into the case. Finally, the judge pointed out that it made no sense to completely shut down Spamhaus, since the site does plenty of perfectly legal things that would be unfairly shut down in doing so. In other words, the judge understood what was going on here and Spamhaus lives on.
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
ICANN.....
Until then [those] authorities are nothing more than a joke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ICANN.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There is nothing else to see here. Currently the assholes are securing legal victories that appear meaningless, but may end up being meaningful.
If that happens then it proves nothing other than the legal system in the US needs an infusion of reality juice.
e360 is listed by spamhaus as a spam site. e360 says they are not a spam site, they are simply a direct marketting site.
Now, I ask you is there anyone who isn't an attorney who can explain the difference between an email direct marketing company and a spammer? Leave it to the legal system to find a difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ICANN.....
if the global internet becomes subject to global rules then we are one step closer to global anti-freedom...
i'm not saying terrorist how-to manuals are good things, because they are EVIL things. but i also don't think you should legislate morality. it is something that must be taught and understood in society as a whole.
the best way for YOU to keep these things off the net is to make sure that YOU aren't contributing, and to lead by example in not doing so.
pulling the plug is simply not the answer, you give people the right to take a freedom away and they don't just take an inch...they take miles upon miles. just look at the patriot act #1 and then the horrific proposal for patriot act #2, for example.
i share your concern, this terrorist crap sucks and even if we DID take away their precious domain names they'd find a way to latch onto a private network somewhere to make sure people could access that content....hell, that's where most of the SMART ONES are already i suspect
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ICANN.....
if the global internet becomes subject to global rules then we are one step closer to global anti-freedom...
i'm not saying terrorist how-to manuals are good things, because they are EVIL things. but i also don't think you should legislate morality. it is something that must be taught and understood in society as a whole.
the best way for YOU to keep these things off the net is to make sure that YOU aren't contributing, and to lead by example in not doing so.
pulling the plug is simply not the answer, you give people the right to take a freedom away and they don't just take an inch...they take miles upon miles. just look at the patriot act #1 and then the horrific proposal for patriot act #2, for example.
i share your concern, this terrorist crap sucks and even if we DID take away their precious domain names they'd find a way to latch onto a private network somewhere to make sure people could access that content....hell, that's where most of the SMART ONES are already i suspect
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: ICANN.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Internet Freedom
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The reason this country is in such a state is because people like you have so much liberal guilt that now we do things that hurt ourselves. We pussyfoot around the globe while evil people laugh at us, because they know that liberals will allow it. We worry about collateral damage and our "image" in the world, when we should be making our sworn enemys worry about what we will do. North Korea laughs at the US because they know we will do nothing about it. They don't fear B-2 Bombers, because they know the ACLU and the liberal democrats won't allow it.
Thanks for making the United States a more dangerous place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Judge Finally Got Wise
Now he's trying to get out of looking like a complete moron.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I propose we throw our hands up, find which way Mecca is, and prostrate ourselves facing it. As for people who refuse, our Imams can hire thugs to point guns at their heads to ensure their conversion. Occasionally, we may have to offer up a daughter or two for "the cause", but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
We will then be loved by millions throughout the world, and there will be peace on Earth!
Now....what does this all have to do with Spamhaus again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The saying actually goes "Peace on earth to men of goodwill", not "peace on earth and goodwell to man"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Buzz! Uh, no. The saying is: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." KJV Bible, Luke Chapter 2 verse 14. Luke is obviously suggesting that all of us mortals are supposed to have good will towards all others (which doesn't mean you don't defend yourself, just that you aren't supposed to be making moral judgments in the course of defending yourself), and to leave the decisions on who is ultimately good or bad to God.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Buzz! Uh, no Michael
The phrase properly rendered is,
"PEACE ON EARTH TO MEN OF GOOD WILL".
The angels' words are not universalist, if you get my drift.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Buzz! Uh, no Michael
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spamhaus Internet terrorists.
Becoming what you oppose
Editorial by Dave Hayes
Many folks have asked me why I stopped "contributing" to the everlasting debates in NANA (news.admin.net-abuse.*). I generally respond with something along the lines of "I don't wish to become that which I oppose". Indeed, recently I've "plonked" several entities (among them the terrorists known as "spamhaus" and "spews") simply because I no longer wish to beat my head against the stone wall of ignorance.
Terrorists? Yes that's right. One definition of "terrorism" is "attacking innocents in the name of your cause". Nowhere is this more ironic and extreme than in the deeds of my old nemesi, the anti-spammer zealotry collective, some of whom are now known as spamhaus and spews. The terrorism they practice is implemented in the form of "mail blacklists".
Blacklists are not a new notion. In the 1950's, the infamous McCarthy blacklists contained names of "possible communists", which ultimately led us to a more sterile culture.
The social costs of what came to be called McCarthyism have yet to be computed. By conferring its prestige on the red hunt, the state did more than bring misery to the lives of hundreds of thousands of Communists, former Communists, fellow travelers, and unlucky liberals. It weakened American culture and it weakened itself. ---Victor Navasky, Naming Names (New York: Viking Press, 1980)
Modern internet technology has created our own version(s) of social blacklists. Many anti-spam zealots have turned to this method for freeing their mailboxes from spam. Simply expressed, these organizations maintain databases which are supposed to contain the IP addresses of known spammers. They then provide these databases to various electronic mail servers, so that the servers can reject email based on what's in these databases.
The bottom line is, if the machine that sends your email is on this list, a number of mail servers will automatically reject all email from your server.
If (and only if) they restricted these blacklists to actual spammers, I doubt very seriously that I would have problem with this practice. If we could trust human beings to maintain a logical and calm viewpoint about life, I doubt that I would have a problem with these blacklists. Unfortunately we cannot trust these things in either case.
Fact: Spamhaus and spews have added innocent IP blocks to their blacklists.
The anti-spammer idealotry goes like this: "Anyone who gets service from a network friendly to spammers is supporting the spammers and therefore our enemy." (The friend of my enemy is my enemy too?)
So here's how this goes. Once a network provider is branded "a communist"...er excuse me..."a spammer", ALL of their IP ranges are blocked. Typically a network provider is providing services for smaller service providers, many of whom would never and have never engaged in spamming of any kind. No notice is really given on these blacklisting events, rather you find out when mail starts bouncing to some destination. Usually an end customer is the first to notice, and that customers is directed by the bounce to complain to...their own ISP!
In essence, the customer is tricked into presenting the terrorist anti-spam agenda to the ISP. The ISP turns around and finds out that their provider (or provider's provider) is what the anti-spam zealots want "silenced". Until that target complies with their arbitrary agenda (usually of the form "stop spamming", but this is not always true...see below), everyone else has to suffer with electronic mail blocks.
What's wrong with this? Everything.
* First and foremost, the most often heard reason anti-spammers are so rabid about anti-spam is "it makes electronic mail unusable for average people". If this is true, then how does blocking innocent email help this situation? In fact, blacklisting innocents contributes to the problem. The hypocrisy here is so thick I doubt even a knife can cut it. * The dishonor of the practice of blacklists is amazing. Many naive internet mail administrators add blacklists like spamhaus "because they work to reduce spam". Lots of these sites have no idea that they are being cut off from legitimate email because of these machinations. If their customers really knew that they were cutoff, I wonder how many would still buy service? Getting rid of spam is one thing, blocking that key business email that means $100K in sales is quite another. Lets take this one step further. Person A buys email service from ISP X who is using Spamhaus to block spam email. Person A's daughter, who's income is very low due to being a student in college, buys email service from ISP Y (because it's cheap) who uses IAP S as their connectivity. ISP Y buys network from IAP S because it's cheap. Due to real life constraints, the only contact Person A has with their daughter is email. IAP S suddenly gets put on the anti-spam master blacklist. The same day, Person A's daughter has a car accident. A roommate desperately tries to send email to Person A but it's blocked. Worse, it's blocked because these zealots have an idealogical cause which is set up to be more important than a person's life. This is the height of dishonor. * The practice is quite criminal by many definitions and with criminals on all sides: o Any ISP that is blocked is told to "comply with our demands or be blacklisted" (a.k.a. extortion). o Attacking innocents in the name of their cause (a.k.a. terrorism). o Since the control of the blacklist is out of the hands of the service provider who subscribes to it, by law you must clearly state "random people may be blocked to your email box by other people who are not under our control" before selling "email services". I've never seen this stated on any ISP ad. (a.k.a false advertising) o Blacklisting ISPs is a good way of knocking them out of business (a.k.a restraint of trade) o If spam ever goes away, these organizations will also. Thus they have a vested interest in keeping spam alive (a.k.a playing both sides of the street)
Do note that the anti-spammers claim these practices are not criminal and will "reduce economic support for the 'spam friendly' ISPs". This claim is quite erroneous:
Fact: Spammer companies have far more money than most innocents.
Yep, to the tune of millions of dollars per month. SPAM is big business. Do you think that the income of one little ISP with 1000 customers is going to make any difference against the large income of a spam company? No! All that does is clear more bandwidth for the spammers to use, should the little ISP cave in and switch to another provider.
While there's no proof (that I'm aware of), it's not so far fetched to open up questions of collusion between "the providers that are anti-spam" and the "anti-spam blacklists". Certain providers, to compete, may pay the blacklist groups lots of money to keep attacking innocents, which gets them more customers in the long run as ISPs fold because they cant afford the connectivity provided by the "anti-spam supporter" providers.
I've established some things here:
1. In my opinion, blacklists are bad. 2. The anti-spammers are resorting to clearly criminal activities to further their goals: extortion, restraint-of-trade, terrorism. 3. The effect the anti-spammers are trying to have by blocking innocents only works to destroy email connectivity, the cure is worse than the disease.
This brings me to my concluding point. The original complaint against spammers included accusations of being criminal. Most spammers are considered criminal. Yet look at the anti-spammers! In their undying eternal zeal to end spam, they have become just what they oppose! Criminals and email destroyers. Gee, isn't this what they call the spammers?
The aware person realizes that fighting something only makes it stronger. Indeed, when you see two people rabidly on one side or the other, it's very hard to distinguish the two. They almost appear to be the same person, willing to commit any atrocity for the sake of their ideology or economics. What more do I need to know?
So, in a roundabout way, that's why I don't participate. I've done my days of tilting at windmills. I've presented my pearls, but the swine didn't hear any of them. They've misrepresented my position countless times for their own agendas, failed to understand even the most basic of the concepts I've explained, and twisted what I've said to make me out to be something I am not. ("Spam supporter"...lol)
I have finally realized that it has less to do with the ability to understand, it's mostly that they are not willing to understand. So in that climate I should once again venture forth into that primal never-ending argumentia that is NANA?
No. I'm sorry. I have far better things to do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spamhaus Abuses their power and list
this is what I wrote below. ANd for saying this they had my home internet connection shut of
Spamhaus.org charges a whopping $14500 per year for a blacklist
they don't even own! To verify these charges, visit this page:
http://www.spamhaus.org/datafeed/pricecalculator.lasso
More facts:
----------
The XBL list that comes in the spamhaus.org data feed is in
reality the CBL list at http://cbl.abuseat.org. That list is *not*
owned by spamhaus.org. All spamhaus.org does is copy (download)
the information X number of times a day to their own servers
before feeding it to unsuspecting corporations.
The CBL list has been renamed to XBL by the very cunny(!) folk at
spamhaus.org so that no-one could possibly notice the fraud.
Furthermore, spamhaus.org is selling the rebranded CBL list which
makes up over 90% of the total value of the data feed for up to
$14500 pa, when anyone including corporations and ISPs can get
the *same feed* for *FREE* by filling in this simple form:
http://www.cbl.abuseat.org/rsync-signup.html
This is blatant fraud because by mixing their highly *ineffective*
SBL list with the CBL list, Spamhaus gives the false impression of
their own SBL list being a powerful spam filter. This is a
marketing con, just as ROKSO is a PR ploy.
The stark reality which spamhaus.org has been trying to sweep
under the carpet in the last 3 years is, without the CBL list
spamhaus.org would have been bankrupt by now. Without the CBL
list, Steve, John et al, would not have been able to rake in
hundreds of thousands of easy dollars from corporations and
government institutions gullible enough to believe the
spamhaus.org PR.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
spamhaus PR machine
spamhaus.org) could only detect 25 unique spams out of 63,000+ spam
emails. Unique spams mean spam emails that could not be detected by a
combination of other FREELY available block lists such as:
URIBL : www.uribl.com
SURBL : www.surbl.org
CBL : cbl.abuseat.org
SPAMCOP : www.spamcop.com
DCC : www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc
UCEPROTECT L1 : www.uceprotect.net
NJABL-DUL : www.njabl.org
SBL is made up of 2 components: The SBL and the URIBL_SBL which
detects spamvertized URLs inside the body text of emails. The 25
unique spams caught by SBL in the test run included both
components.
As any enlightened insider involved with anti-spam filtering will tell
you: spamhaus.org/linford is nothing but a PR machine based on pulling
the wool over the unsuspecting and gullible system admins' eyes with
obscure data and unproven claims. Some of these admins have been
conned by the spamhaus/linford PR machine to such an extent that they
cough up a whopping $14,500 every year for the privilege of
subscribing to a worthless list capable of detecting roughly 400
unique spams for every 1,000,000 (1 million) spam emails.
On its front page, spamhaus claims "a spam-free world just a few
clicks away"... What a joke, mister linford !
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]