Re: Spamhaus Ignores U.S. Court?

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 9/16/06, Gary Funck <gary () intrepid com> wrote:
> Althouugh there is a valid meta-issue here regarding jurisdiction,
> this particular case may not be the best one to test that issue.
> The businesses using Spamhaus do so on a voluntary basis.  It is those
> "customers" of Spamhaus that choose to block e360insight.  A likely
> majority of sites using blacklists also implement whitelists -- if a
> vocal group of users within the business demanded to continue to
> receive spam from e360insight, the admins might respond by either
> whitelisting it for all, or just those users who request it.
>
> So, it isn't Spamhaus doing the blocking -- it is the users of Spamhaus.

That's why this IS a good-enough case for testing this. The only
reason Spamhaus lost is because they didn't show up. If they had shown
up there is a good chance the case would have been thrown out in the
first place (but then they would also be conceding, to some degree at
least, jurisdiction arguments).
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.