Are we the only ones who are beginning to think the folks who run Spamhaus are in over their heads?
Sure, Illinois judge Charles Kocoras ruled against e-mail marketer e360 Insight’s request to have Spamhaus’s domain shut down—calling the request overbroad—but e360’s lawsuit against it is not over.
Spamhaus’s on-again, off-again legal defense against e360 Insight, and public statements by executive director Steve Linford indicate the group is far more adept at grandstanding than legal maneuvering.
Spamhaus runs a blacklist of IP address of companies it deems to be spammers that e-mail inbox providers use to screen incoming e-mail for spam.
Judge Kocoras last month signed a default judgment against Spamhaus for $11.7 million because Spamhaus failed to show up in court to defend itself. E360 Insight sued Spamhaus claiming the group erroneously listed its IP addresses causing as much as 60% of its e-mail to be blocked.
When Spamhaus thumbed its nose at the court by claiming U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over the UK-based organization, e360 asked the judge to consider an order for the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers and Internet registrar Tucows to shut Spamhaus’s domain down—a request Kocoras denied.
Throughout the battle, Spamhaus’s executive director, Steve Linford, has shown zero ability to keep his mouth shut when the situation warrants.
For example, when Kocoras signed the judgment against Spamhaus, Linford said it showed that U.S. judges can be “bamboozled” by spammers. Smart: Leave a judge with no choice but to sign a default judgment against you and then call him stupid.
Linford also reportedly told a reporter for online tech publication Computer Act!ve that Spamhaus had followed all the procedures it could in its battle with e360 and that if it had gone to court to defend itself, it would have been considered an admittance that it fell within the court's jurisdiction.
The actual story is that when e360 first sued Spamhaus, the anti-spam group filed to have the venue moved from state to federal court. Famed anti-spam lawyer Pete Wellborn represented the group for a bit, but, according to sources, when Wellborn told Spamhaus he’d have to be paid, Spamhaus balked.
Linford also told an interviewer recently that 90% of all e-mail on the Internet is spam and that if he were to shut Spamhaus down, the e-mail system would literally grind to a halt. If that statement is true, there are millions of dollars to be made by creating a reliable, transparent, accountable, for-profit blacklisting service.
Few argue that Spamhaus doesn’t provide valuable services. When mainstream marketers criticize Spamhaus, they do so for its lack of transperancy and a seeming inability to back down and make amends when its volunteers make a mistake.
Moreover, one marketer who was made aware of this column’s theme yesterday compared it to kicking volunteers cleaning up a disaster area because their efforts aren’t perfect. “Right now, Spamhaus is all we’ve got,” said the marketer who asked to remain anonymous. Point taken.
But Spamhaus’s flaws seem to stem from the fact that it’s an all-volunteer organization. The group is made up of people crusading for a cause rather than employees with jobs and a CEO with a business to run.
Maybe it’s time for Spamhaus to go for-profit. Being forced to pay attention to a bottom line might do wonders for this group.
