Well-Known E-mailers Back Spamhaus in Amicus Brief

Twenty-nine individuals and organizations have signed onto an amicus brief in support of anti-spam blacklisting service Spamhaus in its court battle against e-mail marketer e360 Insight.

Not surprisingly, the list includes many anti-spammers. But it also includes some well-known names from the e-mail marketing industry.

Ironically, signing the brief puts these e-mail companies in bed with one of the industry’s most despised figures: Matthew Prince, the document’s author.

Prince is chief executive of Unspam, the company that runs the so-called child-protection do-not-e-mail registries in Utah and Michigan. He has lobbied to get these registries—which charge marketers a fee to clean their lists of minors’ addresses listed on them—implemented in as many states as possible. Marketers contend his scheme threatens the industry while doing nothing to protect children. Prince is also an adjunct professor at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago.

Among the amicus brief signers from the commercial e-mail industry are pay-for-performance marketing services firm Datran Media.

“Datran has worked extensively with Spamhaus on an ongoing basis, ensuring that client practices meet or exceed industry standards,” the company said in the brief. Datran did not immediately respond to a call for comment made late yesterday afternoon.

Among other signers from the e-mail marketing industry were software and technology provider EmailLabs, and Innovyx, a company that provides e-mail marketing capabilities to agencies.

Reputation services provider Habeas Inc. and deliverability concern Return Path also signed on.

“Return Path believes that this case will help to define the rights of e-mail receivers to use anti-spam mechanisms to provide the best e-mail experience for the consumer,” said copy provided by the company for the brief.

The brief aims to get a well-publicized $11.7 million judgment against Spamhaus overturned.

Illinois judge Charles Kocoras last September signed a default judgment against Spamhaus when the group failed to represent itself in court after being sued by e-mail marketer e360 Insight. Spamhaus claimed the U.S. federal court had no jurisdiction over the UK-based organization, but only after it had filed to have the venue moved from state to federal court.

Spamhaus maintains a list of IP addresses it contends are used by spammers. An unknown number of e-mail system administrators use the list to help determine whether or not to block incoming e-mail as spam.

Spamhaus’ critics contend it is a group of overzealous vigilantes with no accountability. However, many e-mail administrators say their systems would be crushed by unsolicited without Spamhaus. The organization’s executive director, Steve Linford, claims Spamhaus protects 650 million inboxes.

E-mail marketer e360 Insight’s chief executive Dave Linhardt sued Spamhaus last year claiming the group began erroneously began listing his IP addresses in 2003, resulting in as much as 65% of his e-mail getting blocked.

In the months since the September default judgment, Spamhaus has refused to pay and has tried unsuccessfully to get e360’s judgment overturned, while Linhardt has tried unsuccessfully to get Spamhaus’s domain shut down.

Other signers of last week’s amicus brief include well-known anti-spammers, such as Paul Vixie, founder of the Internet’s first anti-spam blacklister Mail Abuse Prevention System or MAPS, the Coalition Against Unsolicited Email, and John Levine, chair of the anti-spam research group of the Internet Research Task Force and the author of “Internet for Dummies.”

“I think the court made a mistake in that they really should have figured out that Spamhaus is in London and not in Chicago,” said Levine. “Beyond that, Spamhaus is by far the facility that gets rid of the most spam with the fewest bad side effects. It would be really bad for the community if they couldn’t keep doing that. … Spamhaus does try reasonably hard to make sure they don’t block good mail.”

The amicus brief dated Feb. 28 argues that the default judgment against Spamhaus should be thrown out because it threatens the all-volunteer organization’s ability to ensure the viability of e-mail. It also argues that Spamhaus isn’t liable because Internet service providers and not Spamhaus decide what e-mail to accept and what to block; all Spamhaus does is publish a list. The brief also contends that the ruling sets a standard that would thwart ISPs’ ability to block spam.

“Allowing the district court’s default judgment against Spamhaus to stand would have disastrous consequences upon the continued efficient and legal functioning of the Internet worldwide,” said the brief.