<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Spamhaus et al et al et al
- To: Veni Markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx>, ga <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Spamhaus et al et al et al
- From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=A62OifX9qylljkm2+EL2Io17L0ixnhRIkpZWDK60Xzm4vO8Mk/dPiUIvWCqM01IPvM61DdlKKYlAsLJDMB8XeMA7AldbMUEsMI6QpGJ4o3vQpIAor+uwO/80W7iXzJr+ReoNY2IEgL8kyTg7AJ+TVO4lDRdzv6pSO7i9HBpiwKo= ;
- In-reply-to: <200610142119.k9ELJoRt001837@mxr.isoc.bg>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The trouble I have with Wendys' article is she broadsweeps the legal wrangling. For instance if she is going to talk about Jurisdiction she should talk about special appearances for the purpose of objecting. And then she should make clear that spamhaus blocks mail intented for Illinois recipients. Further that the court can in fact enjoin third parties who are not named; up to that party to properly object - but nevertheless a court can do it.
But overall I like her outside looking in through the looking glass approach and her melding of tech and law.
e
Veni Markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
this one by Wendy is also interesting:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/spamming_news_spamhaus_non_story_viral/
At 02:41 PM 14.10.2006 '?.' -0700, Hugh Dierker wrote:
>Declan does his usual good job on this article;
>http://news.com.com/2061-10796_3-6124737.html
>
Sincerely,
Veni Markovski
http://www.veni.com
check also my blog:
http://blog.veni.com
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|