Oral arguments in Spamhaus’ appeal were held last week. Mickey blogged about it on Thursday. I heard from him and a bunch of the Spamhaus folks about it at MAAWG, but was busy enough that I didn’t get a chance to listen to it. Mickey is not exaggerating on how badly the judges, particularly Judge Posner, beat up on e360’s lawyer. More quotes are available at Appeals judges berate spammer for “ridiculous,” “incompetent” litigation.
donhburger: Why does Yahoo sell our email addresses to spammers?
Read More
YMailRyan: We absolutely don’t sell your addresses to spammers. No IFs, ANDs, or BUTs about it.
imintrouble: My mom keeps emailing em but I never get it and usually it ends up in my spam box. Why? How do I make this stop? She’s getting pissed that I’m not replying.
YMailTeam: Oh no! Be sure your Mom is on your contact list– this should help keep mom out of spam box and put her back into your inbox.
buergej: Just why do I keep receiving the same kind of spam from a series of what appear to be women day after day after day?
YMailCarl: Spam is, unfortunately a constant problem for anyone using email. The reason you are receiving these emails is because spammers have somehow gotten a hold of your email address and are mailing you their lovely messages. There are several things you can do to assist with this. First, continue to report these messages as “Spam” by clicking the button at the top of the email labled “Spam”. Note that you don’t need to actually look at the message to do this. When you report items as spam it lets Yahoo! know that messages originating from that person are likely spam. This not only helps you, but helps other Yahoo! users as well.
YMailCarl: Second, if the emails are from similar names, you can set up filters in your email account to block those names and send them to your trash or spam folder.
YMailCarl: Obviously these messages you are receiving are not from women trying to sell you products personally – the messages are typically generated by a script which will try to forge or “spoof” the originating address.
YMailCarl: We agree that Spam is a serious issue and have many resources dedicated to fighting this problem.
YMailCarl: You can find some additional information about fighting spam here: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/original/abuse/index.html
donhburger: Why when I mark Emails as Spam do I continue to get emils from the same persons?
YMailMaryn: When you mark a message as “spam” from within your Inbox that moves the message to your Spam Folder. And all subsequent messages that are sent from that particular sender will not be delivered to your Inbox, but will be delivered to your Spam Folder.
Today’s been chock full of phone calls and dealing with clients, but I did happen to notice a bunch of people having small herds of cows because Spamhaus listed www.gmail.com on the SBL.
“SPAMHAUS BLOCKS GOOGLE!!!” the headlines scream.
My own opinion is that Google doesn’t do enough to police their network and their users, and that a SBL listing isn’t exactly a false positive or Spamhaus overreaching. In this case, though, the headlines and the original article didn’t actually get the story right.
Spamhaus blocked a range of IP addresses that are owned by Google that included the IP for www.gmail.com. This range of IP addresses did not include the gmail outgoing mailservers.
Spamhaus says
There’s been a bit of court activity related to spam that others have written about and I feel need a mention. I’ve not yet read the papers fully, but hope to get a chance to fully digest them over the weekend.
First is e360 v. Spamhaus. This is the case that actually prompted me to start this blog and my first blog post analyzed the 7th circuit court ruling sending the case back the lower court to determine actual damages. The lower court ruled this week, lowering the judgment to $27,002 against Spamhaus. The judge ruled that there was actual tortuous interference on the part of Spamhaus. In my naive reading of the law, this strikes me as not only an incorrect ruling, but one that ignores previous court decisions affirming that blocklists are protected under Section 230. Venkat seems to agree with me.