This time e360 is in court suing a number of individuals for calling him a spammer.
Mickey has docs up on SpamSuite.com and Ken Magill has written about it as well.
Dave has also responded to ReturnPath, through Ken, with a public letter explaining why his statement disagrees with ReturnPath’s statement about his acceptance into the SenderScore Certified program.
Rumor has it that Dave is claiming he is out of money. If that’s true, who is funding these cases?
Al Ralsky is a very prolific spammer and his name is well known among ISP abuse desks. Along with 10 other people he was indicted today after a 2 year investigation by the Justice Department, according to an article published today by the Detroit Free Press.
Read MoreMickey has some commentary and the full ruling up on Spamsuite. In short the appeals court affirmed the default judgment, vacated the judgment on damages and remanded the case back to the lower court to determine appropriate damages.
There are a couple bits of the ruling that stand out to me and that I think are worthy of comment.
Spamhaus made a very bad tactical decision by initially answering and then withdrawing that answer. The appeals court ruled that action signaled that Spamhaus waived their right to argue jurisdiction and that they submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. Based on this, the appeals court upheld the default judgment against Spamhaus. Not necessarily the outcome any of us wanted, but that doesn’t set any precedent for future cases unless defendants answer and then withdraw the answer. Specifically on page 12 of the ruling the court says:
I’ve been working on a document discussing laws relevant to email delivery and have found some useful websites about laws in different countries.
US Laws from the FTC website.
European Union Laws from the European Law site.
Two documents on United Kingdom Law from the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Data Protection Laws
Canadian Laws from the Industry Canada website.
Australian Laws from the Australian Law website