![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gizaFor 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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-20 09:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-21 12:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-21 12:56 am (UTC)spamhaus erroneously blocked my ip
Date: 2008-04-11 02:47 pm (UTC)spamhaus recently blocked a range of ips at my datacenter in an sbl listing. my ip was included in the range but the other ips are not under my jurisdiction. the offending spam was from one of those ips that doesn't belong to me.
Meanwhile I am loosing business as all emails sent from my ip are being bounced back. The data center has taken steps to correct the issue as far as I know, but the listing remains.
No one seems to identify with the situation at spamhaus and I am basically being treated like a criminal. All this despite the fact that my ip was not involved in any spam or unsolicted mass email sending.
The financial losses resulting from this may overwhelm the business and my legitimate web hosting company may have to close as a result.
Regarding innocent users who are erroneously blacklisted and have no avenue for correcting the issue, what say you?
Re: spamhaus erroneously blocked my ip
Date: 2008-04-12 07:20 pm (UTC)Well, you haven't told me who you are, nor what your IP is. I'm not sure what you want me to do since I have no information to work with.
Re: spamhaus erroneously blocked my ip
Date: 2008-04-12 08:03 pm (UTC)Having said that, I am truly not afraid. The listing is public anyway, Here is the listing:
http://www.spamhaus.org/SBL/sbl.lasso?query=SBL64224
If that doesn't work try:
http://www.spamhaus.org/SBL/index.lasso
then enter the listing number at the bottom: SBL64224
I am rocketmediahosting.net my ip is 208.78.70.94 I do not own the other ips in the block listing. my ip is the main ip of a legitimate cpanel server. My business is registered in the city of los angeles. Our users are media professionals and all users who want quality, affordable, dependable webhosting for their custom domain name. The company has been hosting websites for 5 years.
I've been working trying to be de-listed for 55 hours now, my hosting customers are angry to say the least.
What do you think?
Re: spamhaus erroneously blocked my ip
Date: 2008-04-13 04:49 am (UTC)It took the owner of Calpop, a huge data center here in los angeles to deal with it personally.
Perhaps Spamhaus could at the very least consider changing its controvertial policy of using these types of listings. Specifically my listing was a Spamhaus sbl /28. This type of listing can net ips that are close in range to that of a spammer. It is called a blocklist.
The tricky thing with this issue is getting de-listed, spamhaus will only work with the data center with this type of listing.
My attempts to inform them of faulty listing were brushed off along with all my attempts in getting help with the problem. They still have not acknowledged having disrupted my service!
cheers,
Jon T.