![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
For those who haven't followed this too closely, last year a "marketing firm" by the name of e360Insight (which is really a one-man company run by Dave Lindhart) sued Spamhaus for listing them as a "spammer". The funny part is that the lawsuit was filed in Chicago against Spamhaus, which is a British organization. (yes, there was lying under oath involved) Not surprisingly, Spamhaus rejected the jurisdiction of the court. e360 got a default judgement for some millions of dollars, and Spamhaus has yet to pay them a dime (and has no intention of doing).
Here are some samples of e360Insight spam.
Some time goes by, and then Dave Lindhart, the president of e360 shows up on news.admin.net-abuse.email and proceeds to start ranting about Spamhaus. Not surprisingly, the regulars there justifiably tore his arguments apart. His response? To sue the members of that newsgroup. [Link #1, from DM News] [Link #2, from nanae itself]
It seems to me that Dave Lindhart has just a bit of a problem taking criticism. He can sure dish it out, but he can't seem to take it.
The DM News article was rather lulzy too, with totally clueless statements like this:
Anyone who has been on Usenet knows that "emailing a newsgroup" makes about as much sense as getting your car to run off of pizza.
What's really funny (or sad, depending on your viewpoint) is that Dave Lindhart has apparently failed to learn from past history. Let us count the ways:
- Suing a blacklist? CHECK.
- Suing a blacklist in a jurisdiction in which they do not operate? CHECK.
- Publicly making statements about the case? CHECK. And CHECK.
- Getting in arguments with the anti-spam community? CHECK.
- Trying to stifle criticism from the community? CHECK.
And in many cases going back to the late 90s, it's been the same thing: spammer talks tough in public and in court, but when push comes to shove, suddenly they don't have the "evidence" they claim they had, or an overwhelming amount of evidence (i.e. spam received) is presented in court, or the defense's lawyers cite case law and destroy the spammer's case.
Oh well, it'll be fun and interesting to watch. In a trainwreck sorta way.
Here are some samples of e360Insight spam.
Some time goes by, and then Dave Lindhart, the president of e360 shows up on news.admin.net-abuse.email and proceeds to start ranting about Spamhaus. Not surprisingly, the regulars there justifiably tore his arguments apart. His response? To sue the members of that newsgroup. [Link #1, from DM News] [Link #2, from nanae itself]
It seems to me that Dave Lindhart has just a bit of a problem taking criticism. He can sure dish it out, but he can't seem to take it.
The DM News article was rather lulzy too, with totally clueless statements like this:
Nanae, a Usenet newsgroup whose Web site claims to be "dedicated to discussing e-mail spamming," did not immediately return e-mails for comment.
Anyone who has been on Usenet knows that "emailing a newsgroup" makes about as much sense as getting your car to run off of pizza.
What's really funny (or sad, depending on your viewpoint) is that Dave Lindhart has apparently failed to learn from past history. Let us count the ways:
- Suing a blacklist? CHECK.
- Suing a blacklist in a jurisdiction in which they do not operate? CHECK.
- Publicly making statements about the case? CHECK. And CHECK.
- Getting in arguments with the anti-spam community? CHECK.
- Trying to stifle criticism from the community? CHECK.
And in many cases going back to the late 90s, it's been the same thing: spammer talks tough in public and in court, but when push comes to shove, suddenly they don't have the "evidence" they claim they had, or an overwhelming amount of evidence (i.e. spam received) is presented in court, or the defense's lawyers cite case law and destroy the spammer's case.
Oh well, it'll be fun and interesting to watch. In a trainwreck sorta way.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}