Comments on: 7th circuit court ruling in e360 v. Spamhaus http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2007/08/7th-circuit-court-ruling-in-e360-v-spamhaus/ Spam, delivery, email and more Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:56:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: PennyCentury http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2007/08/7th-circuit-court-ruling-in-e360-v-spamhaus/#comment-129 PennyCentury Sat, 20 Oct 2007 19:08:24 +0000 http://blog.wordtothewise.com/index.php/2007/08/30/7th-circuit-court-ruling-in-e360-v-spamhaus/#comment-129 The "right" to send email ends at the demarcation of the internet and the beginning of an individual private network. The operator of the private network is free to block any email that operator deems to be unacceptable for any reason; their servers, their rules. Some network operators use heuristics or a dedicated appliance to determine which emails are permissible or not. Others *choose* to use a list or lists developed by outside sources. An analogy would be, you do not have the right to harangue me in my living room. Spammers send their advertising POSTAGE DUE. Spam is theft. Spam wastes bandwidth. Commercial speech has been found to be NOT subject to the First Amendment. The “right” to send email ends at the demarcation of the internet and the beginning of an individual private network. The operator of the private network is free to block any email that operator deems to be unacceptable for any reason; their servers, their rules. Some network operators use heuristics or a dedicated appliance to determine which emails are permissible or not. Others *choose* to use a list or lists developed by outside sources. An analogy would be, you do not have the right to harangue me in my living room. Spammers send their advertising POSTAGE DUE. Spam is theft. Spam wastes bandwidth. Commercial speech has been found to be NOT subject to the First Amendment.

]]> By: Skinny http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2007/08/7th-circuit-court-ruling-in-e360-v-spamhaus/#comment-73 Skinny Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:41:37 +0000 http://blog.wordtothewise.com/index.php/2007/08/30/7th-circuit-court-ruling-in-e360-v-spamhaus/#comment-73 If spamhaus can create their own list of what Spam is or isn't, Then what is to stop us applying this rule in the real world. A joy rider can carry a mission statement declaring that in his terms car theft is ok (a over the top compression but does give the idea). There are a lot of companies that go out of their way to allow people to opt out and try to target to the best of their abilities the marketing campaign. In my opinion Spam in the true sense of the word is mail server hacking and sending out horrific mailings to children these protectors of the internet do not in anyway stop these people instead they target marketing companies that fly the flag and say please unsubscribe here, and try never to email these people again. If you want to fight SPAM then set guidelines between marketing companies and so called Spam filters (stop lists). To make sure everyone is fighting for the same thing. Skinny If spamhaus can create their own list of what Spam is or isn’t, Then what is to stop us applying this rule in the real world. A joy rider can carry a mission statement declaring that in his terms car theft is ok (a over the top compression but does give the idea).
There are a lot of companies that go out of their way to allow people to opt out and try to target to the best of their abilities the marketing campaign. In my opinion Spam in the true sense of the word is mail server hacking and sending out horrific mailings to children these protectors of the internet do not in anyway stop these people instead they target marketing companies that fly the flag and say please unsubscribe here, and try never to email these people again.
If you want to fight SPAM then set guidelines between marketing companies and so called Spam filters (stop lists). To make sure everyone is fighting for the same thing.

Skinny

]]> By: Tim Bolen http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2007/08/7th-circuit-court-ruling-in-e360-v-spamhaus/#comment-7 Tim Bolen Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:31:41 +0000 http://blog.wordtothewise.com/index.php/2007/08/30/7th-circuit-court-ruling-in-e360-v-spamhaus/#comment-7 That was no victory, in any sense of the word, for spamhaus. Nor should it be. e360 sued spamhaus not knowing exactly who spamhaus is, nor who, and what, they represent. Their assumption was that spamhaus was a legitimate entity operating in a normal manner to accomplish a defined mission. Of course, it is not. Spamhaus is a constuction of "volunteers" whose personal interests guide spamhaus policy. Those volunteers are unknown to the general community, so the interests they promote are also unknown. Spamhaus's treatment of the general public is abusive, to say the least, and there are absolutely no standards for policies or enforcement. Each case is up to the "whim" of the volunteer, and since the volunteer operates secretly, from behind the internet equivalent of a "white sheet with eyeholes," there are no restraints on their activities, nor the methods they use to accomplish those activities. In other words, there is no transparency. From the user standpoint, assumptions must be made that those "volunteers" have the worst of motives, and represent the worst type of people, least qualified to make decisions - for the US society is based on transparency and balance. e360's next move is to expose, and single out, the US volunteers." There, I think, will be found the real reason spamhaus operates - the personal interest of the volunteers. Then a whole new game will be on. Tim Bolen That was no victory, in any sense of the word, for spamhaus. Nor should it be.

e360 sued spamhaus not knowing exactly who spamhaus is, nor who, and what, they represent. Their assumption was that spamhaus was a legitimate entity operating in a normal manner to accomplish a defined mission. Of course, it is not.

Spamhaus is a constuction of “volunteers” whose personal interests guide spamhaus policy. Those volunteers are unknown to the general community, so the interests they promote are also unknown.

Spamhaus’s treatment of the general public is abusive, to say the least, and there are absolutely no standards for policies or enforcement. Each case is up to the “whim” of the volunteer, and since the volunteer operates secretly, from behind the internet equivalent of a “white sheet with eyeholes,” there are no restraints on their activities, nor the methods they use to accomplish those activities.

In other words, there is no transparency.

From the user standpoint, assumptions must be made that those “volunteers” have the worst of motives, and represent the worst type of people, least qualified to make decisions - for the US society is based on transparency and balance.

e360’s next move is to expose, and single out, the US volunteers.” There, I think, will be found the real reason spamhaus operates - the personal interest of the volunteers.

Then a whole new game will be on.

Tim Bolen

]]> By: | Flight of The Eaglehawk http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2007/08/7th-circuit-court-ruling-in-e360-v-spamhaus/#comment-4 | Flight of The Eaglehawk Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:26:12 +0000 http://blog.wordtothewise.com/index.php/2007/08/30/7th-circuit-court-ruling-in-e360-v-spamhaus/#comment-4 [...] Laura points out this is a a victory for spamhaus and likely for other DNSBL’s, as long as the requirements for the listing are there, then they can be listed. [...] [...] Laura points out this is a a victory for spamhaus and likely for other DNSBL’s, as long as the requirements for the listing are there, then they can be listed. [...]

]]> By: 7th Circuit Opinion in e360insight v Spamhaus · Intellectual Intercourse http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2007/08/7th-circuit-court-ruling-in-e360-v-spamhaus/#comment-3 7th Circuit Opinion in e360insight v Spamhaus · Intellectual Intercourse Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:46:55 +0000 http://blog.wordtothewise.com/index.php/2007/08/30/7th-circuit-court-ruling-in-e360-v-spamhaus/#comment-3 [...] own policies” pretty much as the extent of injunctive relief available to Linhardt. And, as Laura points out, “As long as listings follow the published guidelines of a DNSBL, then the DNSBL can list [...] [...] own policies” pretty much as the extent of injunctive relief available to Linhardt. And, as Laura points out, “As long as listings follow the published guidelines of a DNSBL, then the DNSBL can list [...]

]]>