Quick news from the E360 case

(via usenet)

The audio transcript of the damages hearing in the E360 case is available as an mp3 file: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/8K0VUL4K.mp3

The money quote at 19:20 into the recording:

I have never seen such an incompetent presentation of a damages case, it's not only incompetent, it's grotesque. You've got damages jumping around from 11 million to 130 million to 122 million to 33 million. In fact the damages are probably zero

Big win for California spam law

Big news from California:

Court Holds Recipients of Unlawful “Spam” Are Entitled to $1,000 Per Email

Last week, Superior Court judge Marie Weiner ruled that Dan Balsam was entitled to $7000 damages plus attorneys' fees and costs from Trancos Inc., of Redwood City.

This is huge news for two reasons: First, it's the first time an anti-spam case has been won by an individual instead of a major ISP.

But more importantly, the judge has ruled that the CAN-SPAM act does not pre-empt the California anti-spam law, California Business & Professions Code § 17529.5.

The judge ruled that the use of generic words in the From: line such as "Paid Survey" and "Your Business" were deceptive, along with their use of multiple domain names, the use of unregistered fictitious business names, and a box at the UPS store were intentionally misleading.

Full details at http://www.DanHatesSpam.com/trancos.html (pdf).

More coverage can be found at the San Francisco Chronicle: SF lawyer awarded $7,000 from email spammer, and SlashDot: 1st Trial Under California Spam Law Slams Spammer.

Another spammer in the slammer: Alan Ralsky

Long-time spammer Alan Ralsky reported to the Morgantown federal pen yesterday. He was sentenced to more than four years last November.

Always unrepentant, Ralsky may or may not re-evaluate his career choice, but at least we'll be free of his spam for the next few years.

Don't register or host your domain in the U.S. if it's controversial — part 2

Last year, I wrote that you should never host or register your web site in the U.S. if it's at all controversial.

The problem is this: someone who wants to shut you down — whether it's someone whose business you interfere with, or the government itself — can usually find a judge somewhere who will be happy to issue a court order seizing your domain name or ordering your hosting provider to shut you down. Hosting your domain and servers overseas gives you a considerable amount of cushion against such abuses of the legal system.

In this week's news, we learn of a judge in New Jersey who has ordered three web sites shut down [ComputerWorld] because they oppose the H-1B visa system.

Judge James Hurley has ordered the three web sites shut down because of a lawsuit by Apex Technology Group Inc., which is suing the three sites for libel, based apparently on anonymous comments left on the sites.

In addition, there is some brouhaha about leaked documents. The leakers should have known to send the documents to wikileaks, who have a history of surviving such legal challenges. (Although, when I just now checked their web site, they've suspended operations while they look for more funding. I think they're a good cause, you might consider contributing.)

You can also read more at vdare.com, another anti-immigrant website.

Related news: According to SlashDot, political parody group "The Yes Men" have had their parody site pulled off line by the Canadian Government.

Alan Ralsky gets more than four years

This just in: The Detroit Free Press and the Detroit News are both reporting that Alan Ralsky has been sentenced to over four years for stock fraud involving a pump-n-dump scheme, as well as money laundering.

I previously wrote about Ralsky in June, when I mentioned that he was facing up to 3½ years.

The sentence was even longer than prosecutors had asked for. Prosecutors had recommended leniency based on Ralsky's cooperation, but the judge saw it differently, citing Ralsky's two previous fraudulent schemes.

Prosecutors estimated that Ralsky made between $400,000 and $1,000,000 on the scheme, meaning that there could be as much as $600,000 unaccounted for. The Free Press estimates that Ralsky made $2.7 million, so there could be far more money unaccounted for.

Meanwhile, Ralsky apparently gets to keep most of the money

Yesterday, I wrote that spammer Alan Ralsky had pled guilty to a number of charges, and was facing roughly 3½ years in prison. The latest word comes from an FBI press release which indicates that Ralsky is also facing a $1 million fine.

However, Ralsky is said to have made $3 million on his various scams.

Hmm, let's see ... $3 million minus $1 million — carry the eleven — is wow, a whole lot of money. Not bad wages for 3½ years.

I'll leave it to my readers to draw their own conclusions about the U.S. justice system. I've already drawn mine.

Alan Ralsky pleads guilty in spam scam

A perennial name in spam, Alan Ralsky, has pled guilty to conspiracy, fraud, and money laundering, along with several other defendants. I first mentioned this case in January of last year, when Ralsky was indicted along with his son-in-law and nine other people.

Among other things, Ralsky is said to have made $3 million in a pump-n-dump scheme involving the Chinese stock market. He faces up to 3½ years in prison. It's not known if he gets to keep the $3 million.

See San Jose Mercury News story Man who led spam scam pleads guilty in Detroit for the full details.

Another spammer in the slammer

As if there's a strange conservation law in effect to counteract Eddie Davidson's escape, Robert Soloway has been given four years in prison for mail fraud, electronic mail fraud, and failing to file a tax return.

While it's less than the prosecution was asking for, it's more than just a slap on the wrist, and with a little luck he won't return to spamming when he's out.

He will also have to pay $700,004 in restitution, which very likely is a slap on the wrist. First, he almost surely has the bulk of his ill-gotten gains safely hidden away and so $700k is a fraction of what he actually made, and secondly, I would bet that the $700k never actually gets paid.

Soloway will be allowed to roam free for sixty days before serving his sentence. The government considers him a significant flight risk, so it will be interesting to see if he actually reports to prison when expected.

Coverage: KOMO tv: 'Spam King' gets 4 years in prison. SpamSuite: Sentencing Hearing.

Word from the Soloway sentencing hearing

Robert Soloway's sentencing hearing has begun, with the hearing already gone to two days and a third day scheduled for next week. It's unusual for a sentencing hearing to go on for more than a single day, and they're still not finished.

The government's sentencing recommendations and Soloway's response can be found at Spamsuite.

In a nutshell, the government lays out what Soloway did (spamming, header forgery, fraud, tax evasion, etc.) They have so many victims it would take weeks for them to all testify. That Soloway has never paid a penny in the judgements against him won by Microsoft and Robert Braver. That Soloway bragged that the law couldn't touch him and none of the plaintiffs would ever see a cent.

The government asks for nine years in prison, three years probation, complete forfeiture of everything Soloway ever made from spamming, 624 hours of community service, and that Soloway be barred from the internet until his sentence is complete.

Soloway's response — or more precisely, his laywer's response — is a more interesting read. Paraphrased, it says:

• They admit that Soloway was a spammer, but say in essence "hey, it's just a little spam".
• They say he only spammed for charity, and if some non-charities took him up on his offer, well, that's not his fault.
• He never spammed for himself, so he obviously didn't make any money from spamming.
• The commercial email kit which he sold received more thanks than complaints.
• Those people who said they didn't get the refunds he promised were just a misunderstanding, and it wasn't all that many anyway.
• He meant to file his taxes, and was filling out the forms when he was arrested.
• Spamming wasn't even against the law until 2004 so who cares that he was spamming since 1999.
• Soloway wasn't really forging the email because the only forgery was putting the recipients own name in the "From" line, and once you opened the email you could see who it was really from.
• All those customers who ultimately got blacklisted by their own ISPs brought it on themselves; they should have read the instructions more carefully.
• It's not Soloway's fault that some ISPs have anti-spam policies.
• Dark Mailer isn't spam software; don't believe what Wikipedia says about it.
• Don't call them "zombies", call them "proxies".
• You can't prove those servers really sent 120 million emails.
• Soloway doesn't have any hidden assets.
• Soloway was framed by other spammers using his business name.
• Only a few of the complaints mentioned actual monetary loss and most of them don't provide any proof.
• Soloway denies that he deliberately increased the amount of spam sent to people who asked to be removed.
• Spam filters are cheap.
• Soloway didn't harvest any email addresses [he bought them fair and square?].
• Don't listen to Robert Braver, he's sued more than 240 people for spamming.
• Ignore Braver's and Microsoft's lawsuits; they were default judgements.
• Soloway never claimed the email list was opt-in.
• At least he didn't send any porn.
• It's not fraud because there was only a 1% complaint rate.
• All those people who received the spam should be forced to prove their losses.
• Soloway only made $400,000 in those four years of spamming he's charged with, so the total losses can't possibly be more than $400,000.
• Putting someone's name in the "From" field isn't identity theft [I'm inclined to agree with this one - ef]
• This is Soloway's first brush with the criminal justice system [ignoring all his brushes with the civil system, and the times he fled jurisdiction on both California and Oregon], so the court should go easy on him.
• It's not his fault, he has Tourette Syndrome. He won't be able to get his meds in jail.
  
• He offered to cooperate with law enforcement after he was arrested.
• He's certainly learned his lesson now, yessiree. You can be sure he won't do it again.
  
• Most of the people responsible for the Enron scandal got shorter sentences than the government is asking for here; it's not fair. Other spammers got shorter sentences.
  
• And hey, it was just a little spam.

Well, that pretty much sums up the defense's case.

Various spam-fighters have been asked to testify at the sentencing hearing, but they're being sequestered before speaking so they don't have much to report outside of their own testimony. Apparently Soloway's mommy is there, scowling at everybody.

Other press on the story:

• CIO.com: Soloway Case Reveals Big Business Behind Spam — discusses spam botmaster Adam Sweaney's testimony of how he sold botnet access to Soloway, how the cost of getting into the spam business has shut out all but the big-time spammers, how much spam costs the ISP industry, and how one Soloway customer lost his internet access after using Soloway's software and the losses he suffered as a result.
• KOMO Victims testify at Spam King's sentencing — discusses the challenges the judge will have assessing damages. (Why does the press call every spammer a "Spam King")? Includes link to video with footage of Soloway and interviews with various figures in the story.
• Computer World: Judge delays 'spam king' sentencing. The third day of testimony in the sentencing hearing has been scheduled for 22 July.
• Seattle PI: 'Spam King' defied Feds, now faces up to 20 years.
  

Judge rejects Linhardt's request to be dismissed from Comcast lawsuit

When a judge's ruling starts with "I have before me a largely misguided motion...", you know it's a bad day for whoever filed it.

In January, E360 filed a lawsuit against Comcast in the hopes that they could force Comcast to accept E360's spam. E360 lost that suit.

In March, Comcast counter-sued E360 and its owner Dave Linhardt for spamming. This suit is still ongoing.

In April, E360 filed a motion to dismiss, asking among other things, that Linhardt be dismissed from the suit under the theory that he was only doing his job as officer of the corporation, and only the corporation should be held liable.

Today, Judge Zagel ruled against E360 on almost every single point. Most significantly, Linhardt will remain part of the lawsuit:

This leaves the final point, which seeks dismissal of the only natural person among the Counter-Defendants, Linhardt. What is offered to support his dismissal from the claims is the rule which protects corporate officers from personal liability for misdeeds of the corporation. However, this rule does not cover corporate officers who are alleged to direct and control the corporation. It is difficult to seek shelter in this rule when one is alleged to be the whole owner and controller of the all the corporations involved, as is the case here. And there are allegations of specific actions by Linhardt which would establish his liability, i.e., that he deliberately lied to Comcast when he orally stated that all intended e-mail recipients have opted in to receive the emails and that he ordered the abuse of process.

The only piece of the lawsuit the judge was willing to dismiss was Comcast's "unjust enrichment" claim which E360 asked to have dismissed and which Comcast didn't even bother to argue. The judge has dismissed this claim, but mentioned — practically invited — that Comcast was free to re-plead this count after discovery.

Also of interest is the Judge's reference to Linhardt's habit of repeatedly dropping and re-filing lawsuits. This is a judge who knows E360 for what they are and won't be letting them get away with any bullshit.

If only Susan Gunn and David Ritz had had judges with this much clue. But then, Comcast is very rich and Gunn and Ritz are not, and in the legal system, you get what you pay for.

(Speaking of which, I would like to take this opportunity to mention that David's legal battles are not over yet, and you can donate to his defense fund here.)

Linhardt drops the other shoe

Or the fourth shoe. Whatever. Who's counting?

Two weeks ago, I wrote about how E360 had dropped their third SLAPP lawsuit against Susan Gunn, Mark Ferguson, and Kelly Chien. E360's tactic seems to be to file unwinnable but expensive nuisance lawsuits against Gunn et al, and then drop the lawsuit at the last minute, allowing them the ability to file yet again later on. The theory being, I suppose, that you can hurt your victims more by dragging them into court repeatedly than by dragging them into court once and seeing it through to the end.

At the time, I speculated as to what Linhardt had planned for the next time.

I didn't have long to wait, as within days, Linhardt slapped Gunn with yet another subpeona. At Susan's request, I've not mentioned it until now, but her lawyer has given her the go-ahead and so you may now read it in her post on usenet.

I'll let you read it for yourselves, but in a nutshell, they demand that she cough up everthing she knows and every piece of documentation she has on the inner workings of Spamhaus.

The subpeona seems to be void on jurisdictional grounds, so it's unlikely that E360 will be getting anything from Susan.

E360 drops lawsuit against Feguson, Gunn, and Chien — again

This just in: alleged spammer E360, who has filed SLAPP lawsuits not once, not twice, but three times against various individuals it thinks are somehow connected to Spamhaus, or who simply called E360 a spammer, has voluntarily dropped their lawsuit yet again.

Quick history: David Linhardt, the owner of E360 first filed a lawsuit against Susan Gunn, Mark Ferguson, Kelly Chien, and other anti-spam activists in federal court. That suit ended when Linhardt didn't even show up in court (neither did the defendants, who had never been served.)

A month later, Linhardt re-filed the same lawsuit, but in state court this time. This forced the defendants to get lawyers and prepare for a lawsuit all over again. In September 2007, Linhardt once again dropped the lawsuit.

True to form, he filed yet a third lawsuit in January of this year, naming Susan Gunn, Mark Ferguson, and Kelly Chien. This lawsuit was interesting in that it coincided with E360's lawsuit against Comcast. Things became interesting, with suits, counter suits, and counter-counter-suits flying thick and furious. There are rumors of offers from Linhardt to settle out of court which were presumably rejected by the defendants.

In mid-April, Gunn filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court gave Linhardt until May 27 to file a response, which Linhardt did not do. Gunn then filed a motion to dismiss based on Linhardt's failure to respond to the first motion.

Finally, comes news that Linhardt has filed his own motion to dismiss. The filing also notes that he's managed to settle with Ferguson. Unfortunately, as with most out-of-court settlements, neither side is saying what the terms were. Knowing what I know of Ferguson, I'm betting that he's not the one who conceeded anything.

The interesting thing is that Linhardt filed to dismiss with prejudice, meaning he won't be allowed to file again.

Now I'm not a lawyer, but I'm puzzled as to why the plaintiff would file to dismiss with prejudice, thus shutting the door for good on his ability to file yet again. This is essentially a legally-binding pledge not to sue again. Is he hoping that by doing this, he'll convince the defendants not to file any counter-suits? Or perhaps this will make the court look more favorably at him in such a suit. Or perhaps this was a condition that was attached in some sort of settlement he made with Ferguson.

If not for the fact that he'd filed with prejudice, I would assume this was just another round of his previous tactic of repeated file-and-drop. He knows he can never actually win a SLAPP lawsuit against anti-spam activists, so his most damaging tactic was to file a suit, and then drop it before he can lose, thus allowing him to repeat the attack. But filing with prejudice? Either he really means to let it go, or it's a diversion of some sort — perhaps he's planning to file in Federal court again next time.

Bad day for E360 (but a good one for the rest of us)

I just got back from vacation to a passel of delightful news. First is word that E360, not to put too fine a point on it, got their ass handed to them in the E360 vs Comcast lawsuit.

A copy of the decision can be found at SpamSuite. It's seven pages long and very worth reading. It starts out:

Plaintiff e360Insight, LLC is a marketer. It refers to itself as an Internet marketing company. Some, perhaps even a majority of people in this country, would call it a spammer.

Now there's an opening paragraph that has Bad Day written all over it for E360.

Anyway, the entire opinion is well worth reading and is clearly the work of a judge who Gets It.

Bottom line: Comcast is immune from lawsuit under the Good Samaritan provision of the CDA, § 230(c). E360's claim that being CAN-SPAM compliant removes that immunity is rubbish. E360's Denial Of Service claims are rubbish. E360's Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage claim is likewise nonsense. E360's first ammendment rights have nothing to do with Comcast, a private enterprise.

Entire lawsuit is dismissed on the grounds that § 230(c) grants immunity to Comcast.

This is a very good outcome. It reinforces the precedent that § 230(c) immunity is absolute and applies to spam-blocking, and it establishes that CAN-SPAM compliance does not affect that immunity.

All that remains is to see what happens with Comcast's countersuit.

More coverage:

• J.D. Falk: If It Spams Like a Duck...
• John Levine: Comcast 1, E360 0
• Slashdot: Judge In e360 Vs. Comcast Rules e360 a Spammer

Comcast strikes back against E360

Some quick background: alleged spammer E360 has sued internet provider Comcast because of Comcast's refusal to deliver E360 spam to Comcast customers. See my March 4 entry for more information and Comcast's response.

This week, the other shoe dropped as Comcast has filed a countersuit against E360, David Linhardt, and many of its related companies (Maverick Direct Marketing, Bargain Depot, Northshore Hosting, etc.) for spamming, computer fraud, abuse of process and other violations. The full text of the lawsuit can be found at Spamsuite, and it's a doozy.

Some of the highlights:

• Comcast states in no uncertain terms that E360 et al are spammers.
• E360 fabricates opt-in records (¶29).
• In 2006, Linhardt called Comcast and "fraudulently represented to a Comcast employee that all of the intended recipients of e360's email messages have opted-in to receive such messages" (¶34).
• In 2007, Linhardt sent a letter claiming the same thing (Exhibit A).
• Comcast offered to help them with their email practices but E360 refused, asserting that they would learn how to circumvent Comcast's filtering system through discovery (¶35)
• After obtaining a court order preventing Spamhaus from listing them as spammers, E360 began marketing their "IP Protection Services" in which they would arrange for third-parties to be included in the court order for a fee (¶41-45, Exhibit B) [I've written about this elsewhere].
• Virtumundo, a spammer, has purchased E360's IP Protection Services (¶46-48, Exhibit C)
• E360 keeps filing, dropping, and re-filing lawsuits against spam-fighters. (¶49-50)
• E360 filed its lawsuit against Comcast knowing it was without merit (¶76)
• E360 filed the lawsuit in order to use the discovery process to learn how to circumvent Comcast's filtering system. (¶77)

Comcast asks that E360 be enjoined from sending spam, that E360 pay damages, that E360 return their illegal profits, and that E360 pay Comcast's legal costs.

What I find most interesting is Comcast's assertion in paragraph 76 that E360 filed this lawsuit in order to use the discovery process to learn how to circumvent Comcast's spam filters.

Ever since this lawsuit was filed by E360, I've been wondering what their motivation was, since they must have known they could never win. It seems that we now have at least part of the answer.

Comcast answer to E360

Spamsuite has published Comcast's response in the E360 vs Comcast lawsuit (in which E360 is suing Comcast for blocking E360's spam.) The document is a long, slow read, since the Comcast lawyers are being very careful to dot all their t's and cross all their i's. Either that, or they're being paid by the word. For the fun part, skip ahead to their Memorandum of law, below.

Allow me to summarize: most E360 allegations are facts about E360, for which Comcast says they don't have any first-hand information to form a belief and therefore deny.

E360 makes many allegations of harm they've suffered because of the spam blocking, and Comcast says they don't have any first-hand information to form a belief and therefore deny.

E360 quotes the law in several places, and Comcast admits that E360 is quoting the law. Except where E360 gets it wrong, in which case Comcast denies.

E360 claims they don't spam, and that they follow the rules. Comcast responds that because they get hundreds of thousands of emails to its subscribers, some of which are forged, and therefore they don't have any first-hand information to form a belief and therefore deny.

E360 claims that Comcast is deliberately and maliciously attacking them. Comcast denies this.

Paragraph 60 is interesting. E360 alleges that Comcast writes pink contracts. Comcast denies this.

Things get interesting in the "Affirmative Defenses" section of Comcast's response (starting at paragraph 63).

Naturally, Comcast starts right out with the section of the Communications Decency Act that immunizes isps that use technical means (e.g. filtering) to protect their subscribers from spam. They go on to state that CAN-SPAM and various state laws also immunize them.

They then point out that E360 has unclean hands based on their violations of CAN-SPAM, the Computer Fraud and Abuse act, and the Illinois Electronic Mail Act.


Next on the docket is Comcast's Memorandum in Support of their motion. This is where the fun begins. This is the document where Comcast calls a spammer a spammer.

The memorandum starts out Plaintiff is a spammer who refers to itself as a “internet marketing company,” and takes off from there.

Of special interest is Comcast's reminder to the court that even if spam doesn't actually violate the CAN-SPAM act, it's still spam and isps still have the right to block it.

E360 sells affiliate status to other spammers — CONFIRMED

Just announced publicly on the net-abuse newsgroups: Some time ago, someone phoned Kelly Hale at E360 pretending to be someone being blocked by Spamhaus and answering E360's ad for Spamhaus removal services. Hale explained in some detail how, for $7500 per block of IP addresses, E360 would force Spamhaus to stop listing the caller's addresses by claiming that the caller is an affiliate of E360.

Hale explained at some length as to how it would be done, leveraging off of their previous lawsuit against Spamhaus (which they won by default when Spamhaus failed to show up, claiming lack of jurisdiction). Hale also offered quantity discounts if the caller wanted to unlist more than a "C" block (256 addresses) of IP space.

An advertising brochure for E360's service offers three options: The first is called "IP Identity Management" and involves modifying the Arin (master registry of all IP blocks) database so make spammer IP addresses look like they belong to E360. This is the service we knew E360 was offering.

The second service they offer is IP Tunneling. In a nutshell, this allows spammer email servers to connect to the internet over a virtual private network to E360's servers in order to hide the spammer's true IP addresses and make them appear to come from E360.

The third option is for the senders to pay E360 to send the spam for them.

A copy of the audio recording can temporarily be found at yousendit.com, along with copies of E360's brochures advertising the services [1], [2]. (Yousendit.com has a download limit, so these links won't work for very long, but I expect mirrors will appear shortly and will update this post as that happens.)

Anyway, very little of this comes as a surprise; it was pretty obvious that E360 was gaming the legal decision as a money-making scheme, having already sold affiliate status to Virtumundo at least, but this audio recording and these brochures are an undeniable smoking gun.

The only real questions that remain are: was this what they had in mind all along when they sued Spamhaus or did they only think of it later? And: how will the judge react when he sees and hears this?

Sanford Wallace and Walter Rines in trouble with FTC again

This just in from the UK Register. The FTC is asking the courts to find Sanford Wallace and Walter Rines in contempt of court.

In 2006, Wallace and Rines settled with the FTC on charges of distributing spyware, agreeing to stop doing it and paying a slap-on-the-wrist $50,000 fine. Within months they were at it again, this time attacking MySpace with Malware and social engineering.

As the Register puts it: "Now the FTC is trying to grow a pair". The FTC is asking the judge in the spyware case to find Wallace and Rines in contempt for violating their 2006 agreement. The FTC also wants to seize over $500,000 in profits from the MySpace caper.

For the full story, including many details on Wallace and Rines' attacks on MySpace users, see Register article Spamford Wallace's MySpace riches come under attack.

Direct magazine picks up the Linhardt story

Direct magazine has picked up the story: Linhardt Sues Anti-Spammers…Again. The article contains a fair amount of detail on the story and its history. There's also a link to Linhardt's explanation as to why he claimed to have Sender Score certification from Return Path, which Return Path has denied.

E360 files third SLAPP suit against Susan Gunn and others

Three days ago, I asked rhetorically where E360 gets the money to file all these harassing lawsuits. That question becomes more serious with the news that Linhardt has filed yet a third lawsuit against Susan Gunn along with Mark Ferguson and Kelly Chien.

Details of the lawsuit can be found at SpamSuite. In a nutshell, it's the same lawsuit as before, claiming defamation because the defendants called them spammers.

There's no way that E360 can win this case on the merits given the abundant evidence of their spamming, and even Ferguson's proof that E360 falsified opt-in records. This is clearly just another lawsuit intended to harass anti-spam activists.

One major question: How many times are the courts going to allow Linhardt to keep re-filing the same lawsuit before they put a stop to it.

Where is the money coming from?

This brings us to the question: Where does E360 get the money for all these lawsuits? The one against Comcast certainly will go nowhere unless E360 spends significant money pursuing it.

One theory I've heard is that, like the Mark Felstein lawsuit against Spamhaus in 2003, this lawsuit is quietly being backed by a coalition of spammers. In this case, the spammers are hoping for a legal precedent which will force Comcast, and by extension other ISPs, to accept spam without any blocking.

E360 back in court; suing Comcast this time

Where do they get the money for all this litigation?

According to Direct magazine, E360 is suing Comcast for blocking E360 spam.

E360 CEO Dave Linhardt insists that E360 does not spam, and that they've been Sender Score Certified by Return Path. Oddly enough, however, Return Path says that E360 has not been certified.

E360 is asking for more than $20M in damages. Perhaps this is their new business model? Send spam, then sue whoever blocks them.

Update: Spamsuite has the paperwork.

Their comments:

Of all of the pathetic lawsuits I've seen....

Well, this one's got it all.

Deferring a connection is tarpitting and is a denial of service attack. Not delivering mail is a denial of service attack. Using a spam filter is not legal (or maybe it's just that it's not kosher -- we'll have to find a rabbi to rule on that one). Not telling a sender how to evade filters is fraudulent. A sender's inability to design a system that can cope with sending more email while waiting for deferred messages to timeout and retry is a denial of service attack caused by the receiver. e360Insight has even tossed in a First Amendment claim and I was pretty sure that we moved past that by 1999. And finally, having a whitelist or a feedback loop that you don't let everyone have is a violation of fair trade rules.

It's stunning. It really is. I'm not entirely sure how you get to be this dense, but I suspect that it's a painstaking (and probably painful) process involving frontal lobotomies and maybe electroshock treatments.

My own comments: This isn't the first time a spammer has sued someone for blocking spam. About two years ago, a spammer called Longhorn Singles sued the University of Texas over spam blocking. They lost.