Spammer strikes back, takes down site

Well, if you go to http://www.evidence-eliminator-sucks.com you'll see that
it's gone. Nothing there but a cease and desist letter. 

This morning my ISP called me and said they'd gotten a nastygram from lawyers 
about my site http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com , which details (well, 
detailed) the true story of the whackiest bunch of spammer scammers on the 
Internet. This letter threatened to file a lawsuit in England against them 
for "aiding and abetting libel" if they did not immediately remove the site 
from the Internet. Unfortunately, a) my ISP is a small local business that 
doesn't have a stable of trained attack lawyers on staff, and b) they do have 
operations in England and thus can't afford to ignore the threat of an 
English lawsuit. So while they love spammers about as much as the rest of us 
do, they could not afford to keep my site up and going. 

So right now I'm looking for someone who can host the site a) cheaply (free 
would be great!), and b) who doesn't have operations in England, and c) hates 
spam enough to ignore nastygrams from spammers threatening to sue them in 
England (heh). I'd appreciate any help I could get there from the 
anti-spam activists out there, surely some of them have had the same problem 
(spammers threatening libel lawsuits because we call them spammers, sigh) and 
have some workable solutions?

-- 
Eric Lee Green  mailto:eric@badtux.org
0
Eric
7/17/2003 7:56:07 PM
grc.spam 3333 articles. 0 followers. Follow

47 Replies
303 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 9

In message <bf6v0n$btp$1@news.grc.com>, Eric Lee Green 
<eric@evidence-eliminator-sucks.com> writes
[]
>Well, if you go to http://www.evidence-eliminator-sucks.com you'll see 
>that it's gone. Nothing there but a cease and desist letter.

Bummer.  I would be delighted to mirror (not host) it for you.  However 
it's ages since I read your site, and have no idea of the size, or 
likely bandwidth requirements.

Having several mirrors up can be very effective.

Drop me a line if you want to.

-- 
Jim Crowther                  "It's MY computer" (tm SMG)
One way to escape spam: <http://popfile.sourceforge.net/>
And another very good one:      <http://keir.net/k9.html>
0
Jim
7/17/2003 11:02:13 PM
In message <xBRR4KP1ryF$Ewqp@my.choice.of.UID>, Jim Crowther 
<Don't.use.Lockdown@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>In message <bf6v0n$btp$1@news.grc.com>, Eric Lee Green 
><eric@evidence-eliminator-sucks.com> writes
>[]
>>Well, if you go to http://www.evidence-eliminator-sucks.com you'll see 
>>that it's gone. Nothing there but a cease and desist letter.
>
>Bummer.  I would be delighted to mirror (not host) it for you.  However 
>it's ages since I read your site, and have no idea of the size, or 
>likely bandwidth requirements.
>
>Having several mirrors up can be very effective.

Indeed. Should somebody register ee-suckers.org? <g>

>Drop me a line if you want to.

I'd be interested in the size of it also.

And I wonder who's responsible for this? Someone has replace the 
archived pages. :(

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com

-- 
 From invalid, Reply To works.
Kevin A.
0
Kevin
7/17/2003 11:21:01 PM
In message <Jwc0Jhad9yF$EAe0@spam.bites>, Kevin A. 
<klex49@2kevin.net.invalid> writes
>And I wonder who's responsible for this? Someone has replace the 
>archived pages. :(
>
>http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com

If done by third-party request, that might be a trick too far...

-- 
Jim Crowther                  "It's MY computer" (tm SMG)
One way to escape spam: <http://popfile.sourceforge.net/>
And another very good one:      <http://keir.net/k9.html>
0
Jim
7/18/2003 2:34:33 AM
Eric Lee Green wrote:
> Well, if you go to http://www.evidence-eliminator-sucks.com you'll
> see that it's gone. Nothing there but a cease and desist letter.

Hope you post this to NANAE as well (net.admin.net-admin.email)
0
YK
7/18/2003 3:03:43 AM
YK wrote:
> Eric Lee Green wrote:
>> Well, if you go to http://www.evidence-eliminator-sucks.com you'll
>> see that it's gone. Nothing there but a cease and desist letter.
> 
> Hope you post this to NANAE as well (net.admin.net-admin.email)

Great.   It is already being discussed there.
Subject: cartooney: evidence eliminator - robin hood software
Archived: http://tinyurl.com/habd

Hope Eric contributes to the discussion.
0
YK
7/18/2003 3:11:03 AM
Eric Lee Green wrote:
> Well, if you go to http://www.evidence-eliminator-sucks.com you'll
> see that it's gone. Nothing there but a cease and desist letter.

Not much I can suggest other than sending copies to local press agents. I
would also suggest replying directly to these lawyers asking for SPECIFIC
instances of defamatory content.

I find some of the statements in the legal letter a bit "odd" coming from a
(presumably) reputable law firm, however. Things like "As you may observe
this product is famous throughout the Internet and endorsed by
law-enforcement authorties and the computer press worldwide" don't seem to
have any place in such a letter (their veracity aside).

Legal letter OCR'd for everyone to read and ridicule (note, I'm not sure
about the email address, the jpegs were poor):

<quote>
DIRECT TEL   01179177830 DIRECT FAX 01179177739
DATE  15 July 2003
EMAIL   rblow@TLTsolicitors.com
URGENT
Dear Sirs
Domain Name - evidence-eliminator-sucks.com, badtux.org and badtux.net

We act on behalf of Robin Hood Software ("RHS") and its director Andy
Churchill Who have consulted us regarding the content of the above site
which we understand is hosted by you.

RHS is an English company which runs an internet site
www.evidemce-eliminator.com offering for sale software, and a particular
product called "Evidence Elimtinator" ('EE") This product allows the user to
regulate the contents of their computer's hard drive. As you may observe
this product is famous throughout the Internet and endorsed by
law-enforcement authorties and the computer press worldwide.

Upon viewing the site evidence-eliminator-sucks.com, badtux.org, and
badtux.net, it is immediately apparent that these contain material which is
gravely defamatory of our clients. Indeed it is apparent both from the name
of the evidence-eliminator-sucks site and from its contents thay the sole
purpose for its existence is to conduct a defamatory campaign against the
good reputation of our clients and their product(s).

Given that RHS is itself an internet sales company, you will appreciate that
the existence of such a site, whose address is thrown up every time a
potential customer does a search for RHS's own web page and/or product, has
a grave impact upon RHS's trading reputation and goodwill and is undoubtedly
affecting sales of its products. This site also contains material personally
defamatory of Mr Churchill. It is also causing grave damage to the personal
and professional reputation of Mr Churchill.

We are writing to put you on formal notice that this site contains the above
defamatory material. You will no doubt be aware that you are considered to
be a publisher under the English law of defamation and that once you have
received notice of the presence of this material on the site you cannot
avail yourselves of the defence of no responsibility for publication under
section I of the Defamation Act 1996 (see Godfrey -v- Demon Internet Ltd
[2001] QB 201). Unless this site is removed within the next 48 hours we have
instructions to commence legal proceedings in the UK for defamation against
you.

Yours faithfully

<signature>

TLT Solicitors
</quote>

Regards,
Sam
-- 
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
7/18/2003 3:53:15 AM
Sam Schinke wrote:
> Eric Lee Green wrote:
>> Well, if you go to http://www.evidence-eliminator-sucks.com you'll
>> see that it's gone. Nothing there but a cease and desist letter.
>
> Not much I can suggest other than sending copies to local press
> agents.

By local press I mean the register, et al, of course. Mind you, for internet
companies any news is good news oftentimes.

At least if they're after lawyers you know you've gotten them where it
hurts. Maybe someone could contract another UK lawyer to sue RHS's ISP for
defamation on your behalf, seeing as they do have pages devoted to you. He
who stands in a glass house...

Other things, such as the claim that your badtux.org/net domains are
intended solely to defame EE are patently false as well.

Regards,
Sam
-- 
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
7/18/2003 3:59:27 AM
Jim Crowther wrote:
> In message <bf6v0n$btp$1@news.grc.com>, Eric Lee Green
> <eric@evidence-eliminator-sucks.com> writes
> []
>>Well, if you go to http://www.evidence-eliminator-sucks.com you'll see
>>that it's gone. Nothing there but a cease and desist letter.
> 
> Bummer.  I would be delighted to mirror (not host) it for you.  However
> it's ages since I read your site, and have no idea of the size, or
> likely bandwidth requirements.

Okay, first of all, plain mirroring isn't going to work. There are two PHP
scripts that show how the EE guys pull off one of their scams. Those PHP
scripts won't mirror using a normal wget-style mirror. It'd have to be a
'push' mirror (i.e., via WebDAV or FTP), which is doable with the 'sitecopy'
software that I use under FreeBSD to publish my web pages out of my CVS
archive (I prototype things on my Linux laptop, check them into the CVS
archive on my main server to back them up, then on my main server run a script
named 'publish' that checks out the changes and invokes sitecopy). This not
only leaves an audit trail that I can use to figure out what got changed when,
and not only leaves a backup on a second system, but sitecopy will do
mirroring (will publish it to multiple servers). 

As far as traffic goes, the site pulls about 4,000 hits per day. The monthly
bandwidth usage is about about 500 megabytes. The site itself is approximately
1.5 megabytes in total size, but could grow to more.

I can set up a rotating DNS as needed so that typing
"http://www.evidence-eliminator-sucks.com" takes you to a random mirror. That
does, however, require that you have control over your apache.conf so that you
can set up a virtual domain. 

> Having several mirrors up can be very effective.

Oh definitely. For one thing, it'd make it hard for their lawyer to know where
to send the nastygrams :-). 

-- 
Eric Lee Green  mailto:eric@badtux.org
Unix/Linux/Storage Software Engineer needs job -- 
see http://badtux.org for resume
0
Eric
7/18/2003 4:24:28 AM
Eric Lee Green <eric@evidence-eliminator-sucks.com> wrote:


>Okay, first of all, plain mirroring isn't going to work. There are two PHP
>scripts that show how the EE guys pull off one of their scams.

MC pops to mind.  I suspect he could handle that.

You out there, Microchip?


>As far as traffic goes, the site pulls about 4,000 hits per day. The monthly
>bandwidth usage is about about 500 megabytes. The site itself is approximately
>1.5 megabytes in total size, but could grow to more.

And with the likelihood of press coverage, there's a strong probability
of several times the traffic.


>I can set up a rotating DNS as needed so that typing
>"http://www.evidence-eliminator-sucks.com" takes you to a random mirror. That
>does, however, require that you have control over your apache.conf so that you
>can set up a virtual domain. 

There's the idea.


>> Having several mirrors up can be very effective.

>Oh definitely. For one thing, it'd make it hard for their lawyer to know where
>to send the nastygrams :-). 

And they have no jurisdiction in the US.

And a different set of laws, which I think may be much less likely to
support any claim of defamation.

Incidentally, I have a likely case against EE for defamation, myself.
They'd better mind their house.

pchelp
0
pchelp
7/18/2003 4:42:00 AM
Kevin A. wrote:
> And I wonder who's responsible for this? Someone has replace the
> archived pages. :(
> 
> http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com

Your mistake is to use the bare domain name. Until this takedown happened,
there was nothing at that URL except a bounce to
http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com/eesucks/index.html . If you type that
longer URL into the archive.org URL thingy, you get what you expect (the old
version of the site).  

-- 
Eric Lee Green  mailto:eric@badtux.org
Unix/Linux/Storage Software Engineer needs job -- 
see http://badtux.org for resume
0
Eric
7/18/2003 4:56:43 AM
In message <bf7umb$63l$1@news.grc.com>, Eric Lee Green 
<eric@evidence-eliminator-sucks.com> writes
>Kevin A. wrote:
>> And I wonder who's responsible for this? Someone has replace the
>> archived pages. :(
>>
>> http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
>
>Your mistake is to use the bare domain name. Until this takedown happened,
>there was nothing at that URL except a bounce to
>http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com/eesucks/index.html . If you type that
>longer URL into the archive.org URL thingy, you get what you expect (the old
>version of the site).

Ah thank you. Even better is
<http://web.archive.org/web/*/evidence-eliminator-sucks.com/*> which 
lists all your old pages. Now we'll just hope that you can get them back 
on a good site.

-- 
 From invalid, Reply To works.
Kevin A.
0
Kevin
7/18/2003 5:37:20 AM
Eric,
 IANAL and IIRC, defamation is only applicable if you are posting
falsehoods.  As long as the "defamatory" remarks were basically accurate, it
isn't defamation.  The last time I looked at your site (and I'll admit I
didn't read EVERYthing) it looked like a very opininated site, but I didn't
see anything I could label as a lie.  As long as everything on tour site was
verifiably true, you could point this out to your ISP and suggest that they
way want to reinstate your site...

FWIW, Here is a online copy of the English Defamation Act 1996
 http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996031.htm

Good luck,
      ... JLS
0
jls
7/18/2003 4:00:02 PM
jls wrote:

> Eric,
>  IANAL and IIRC, defamation is only applicable if you are posting
> falsehoods.  As long as the "defamatory" remarks were basically accurate, it
> isn't defamation.  The last time I looked at your site (and I'll admit I
> didn't read EVERYthing) it looked like a very opininated site, but I didn't
> see anything I could label as a lie.  As long as everything on tour site was
> verifiably true, you could point this out to your ISP and suggest that they
> way want to reinstate your site...

http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com/legal2.html

A leaked EMAIL from my ISP to one of Andy Churchill's sock puppets. They sound
irritated. I get the feeling that if Andy pesters them any more, I'm going to
get a phone call saying "Put that site back online, I want to hurt those
bastards!". 

Under UK law, as I mentioned, truth is not a defense in a libel lawsuit. For an
example, a tabloid took a picture of an actress staggering out of a rehab
facility when she'd said she was on vacation on the French Riviera. They
published the photo. She sued -- and won, because even though it was true, it
harmed her reputation and under UK law she was due damages for that harm. 

Now you know why the Brits seem so veddy polite and not eager to offend... if
they're not, they get sued!

-- 
Eric Lee Green  mailto:eric@badtux.org
Unix/Linux/Storage Software Engineer needs job -- 
see http://badtux.org for resume
0
Eric
7/18/2003 8:40:07 PM
"Eric Lee Green" <eric@evidence-eliminator-sucks.com> wrote...
> http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com/legal2.html
>
> A leaked EMAIL from my ISP to one of Andy Churchill's sock puppets. They
sound
> irritated. I get the feeling that if Andy pesters them any more, I'm going
to
> get a phone call saying "Put that site back online, I want to hurt those
> bastards!".

After reading that, if I was in Arizona and needed an ISP, I'd certainly
consider giving FastQ my business.  It's good to see an ISP that knows how
to tell a bully where to get off.  Heck, the tone of the letter TO your ISP
was so pushy that -I- found myself wanting to tell them off myself...

> Under UK law, as I mentioned, truth is not a defense in a libel lawsuit.
For an
> example, a tabloid took a picture of an actress staggering out of a rehab
> facility when she'd said she was on vacation on the French Riviera. They
> published the photo. She sued -- and won, because even though it was true,
it
> harmed her reputation and under UK law she was due damages for that harm.

True.  Good thing that (apparently) neither you nor your ISP are in the
UK...

Good luck,
        ... JLS
0
jls
7/18/2003 9:10:15 PM
"jls" <bcddrcl302@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:bf9nnn$g9b$1@news.grc.com...
> "Eric Lee Green" <eric@evidence-eliminator-sucks.com> wrote...
> > http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com/legal2.html

I notice they have a web site, www.TLTsolicitors.com and a contact email
address ally@TLTsolicitors.com.  I sure hope they don't find their way onto
a few dozen "Opt out" lists.  Wouldn't that just suck for them?

Marc
0
MarcRW
7/18/2003 9:17:23 PM
In message <bf9lv7$ebs$1@news.grc.com>, Eric Lee Green 
<eric@evidence-eliminator-sucks.com> writes

>http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com/legal2.html

EE doesn't like playing whack-a-mole?

>A leaked EMAIL from my ISP to one of Andy Churchill's sock puppets. They sound
>irritated. I get the feeling that if Andy pesters them any more, I'm going to
>get a phone call saying "Put that site back online, I want to hurt those
>bastards!".

 From what I know of Andy, he's not the type to back off, or even tone it 
down. If a little rudeness doesn't work, then he gets obnoxious. A 
couple more posts from you showing the same source IP and therefore 
verifying you're still connected should wind him up.

>Under UK law, as I mentioned, truth is not a defense in a libel lawsuit. For an
>example, a tabloid took a picture of an actress staggering out of a rehab
>facility when she'd said she was on vacation on the French Riviera. They
>published the photo. She sued -- and won, because even though it was true, it
>harmed her reputation and under UK law she was due damages for that harm.
>
>Now you know why the Brits seem so veddy polite and not eager to offend... if
>they're not, they get sued!

Hmm, seems to me that he's said some pretty nasty things about you. You 
probably need to be a UK resident to get that "protection" though.

-- 
 From invalid, Reply To works.
Kevin A.
0
Kevin
7/18/2003 9:39:29 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Eric Lee Green wrote:

| [snip]
|
| http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com/legal2.html
|
| [snip]

Finally read one of the mirrors and found this link:
http://www.evidence-eliminator.com/dis-information.d2w

That is just hilarious. Hope FastQ plays this right. Your site has a legal right
to exist.
- --
/z
ditmarst@enter.net
http://www.enter.net/~ditmarst/
Contact me for messenger IDs.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/GIZXVmUf0HBQfMkRAkzhAJ9Dljgbsa46LWB+wXqCnuIi/pdebgCeMUD0
dMlJdcqDSxHO7vsf+TW9dWs=
=H/QI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
Thomas
7/18/2003 11:44:29 PM
Kevin A. wrote:
>>Now you know why the Brits seem so veddy polite and not eager to offend... if
>>they're not, they get sued!
> 
> Hmm, seems to me that he's said some pretty nasty things about you. You
> probably need to be a UK resident to get that "protection" though.

No, I could sue even if not a UK resident, as long as it could be demonstrated
that my reputation in the UK was harmed by the statements. However, I would
have to place myself under the jurisdiction of a UK court to do so -- and I
have no intention of doing so, for obvious reasons!

Similarly, I can sue here in the United States. However, collecting any awards
will be difficult if I do so -- about all I could do would be to get an
impound and seizure order to impound anything coming through Customs, and a
seizure order for the dollar amounts in their iBill.cs account (used for
clearing their U.S. orders). Then *I* would end up playing whack-a-mole, as
they started changing their name on shipping labels to avoid the impounds, and
started flipping through clearing houses to evade seizure orders. 

So far, it just hasn't been worth it to hire a lawyer and go the "sue'em until
they're crisp and toasty" route. Alas. 

-- 
Eric Lee Green  mailto:eric@badtux.org
Unix/Linux/Storage Software Engineer needs job -- 
see http://badtux.org for resume
0
Eric
7/19/2003 12:59:13 AM
Eric Lee Green <eric@evidence-eliminator-sucks.com> wrote:

>http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com/legal2.html

Interesting.  Not written by any attorney!

Andy must have figured he'd pushed your ISP this far with success, he
only needed to shove a bit harder to get you whacked right off the Net.

What a maroon.


>Under UK law, as I mentioned, truth is not a defense in a libel lawsuit. For an
>example, a tabloid took a picture of an actress staggering out of a rehab
>facility when she'd said she was on vacation on the French Riviera. They
>published the photo. She sued -- and won, because even though it was true, it
>harmed her reputation and under UK law she was due damages for that harm. 

>Now you know why the Brits seem so veddy polite and not eager to offend... if
>they're not, they get sued!

Eric, I think you're defensible all the same.  By their own acts they've
given themselves an horrific reputation, unlike your example actress.
Your site is a focal point of EE criticism, but it's far from the only
one.

Anyone, anywhere who doesn't like spam and who has an inkling of EE's
history in that respect, certainly doesn't like EE!

And their spiel?  Even a US FTC spokesperson has referred to their
advertising as "deceptive."

Where's Milly?  She could probably cast lots more light on the legal
likelihoods.

pchelp
0
pchelp
7/19/2003 3:52:00 PM
Thomas Ditmars <ditmarst@enter.net> wrote:

>Finally read one of the mirrors and found this link:
>http://www.evidence-eliminator.com/dis-information.d2w

>That is just hilarious.

Isn't it?  As one of the targets of that dis-information, I find your
response gratifying.  And typical.

In fact, not once, ever, have I had one single indication that any
rational person ever believed a word of Mr. Churchill's rant about me.

I almost wish it _were_ taken seriously when I contemplate suing the
creep.  But alas, it's just too weird.  I've had nothing but the
occasional email pointing out what an ass Andy must be.

I suspect Eric has the same problem.

pchelp
0
pchelp
7/19/2003 4:02:00 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

pchelp wrote:

| Thomas Ditmars <ditmarst@enter.net> wrote:
|
|
|>Finally read one of the mirrors and found this link:
|>http://www.evidence-eliminator.com/dis-information.d2w
|
|
|>That is just hilarious.
|
|
| Isn't it?  As one of the targets of that dis-information, I find your
| response gratifying.  And typical.
|
| In fact, not once, ever, have I had one single indication that any
| rational person ever believed a word of Mr. Churchill's rant about me.
|
| I almost wish it _were_ taken seriously when I contemplate suing the
| creep.  But alas, it's just too weird.  I've had nothing but the
| occasional email pointing out what an ass Andy must be.
|

That's his problem; he doesn't make his accusations believable. In fact, he's
more "attacking" than "accusing". After reading second email sent to FastQ, that
point is struck home even more. I proofread nearly everything I put on the
Internet, including this post (which has no impact to anyone but the readers of
this newsgroup). Mr. Churchill's email to FastQ is rife with grammar and
spelling errors. His tone is also non-professional.

You'd think he'd have a little more respect for The System if he really wanted
to convince FastQ he had a case against Eric's site. Oh, well.
- --
/z
ditmarst@enter.net
http://www.enter.net/~ditmarst/
Contact me for messenger IDs.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/GXGPVmUf0HBQfMkRAojCAJ9lB3ZbdO6Aw5B7NDylIUWqoobNHQCeJg0b
kXdupM93Q2p0CGmgsgSmGV0=
=p9mo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
Thomas
7/19/2003 4:28:01 PM
Eric Lee Green <eric@evidence-eliminator-sucks.com> wrote in
news:bf9lv7$ebs$1@news.grc.com: 
 
> http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com/legal2.html
> 
> A leaked EMAIL from my ISP to one of Andy Churchill's sock puppets.
> They sound irritated. I get the feeling that if Andy pesters them any
> more, I'm going to get a phone call saying "Put that site back online,
> I want to hurt those bastards!". 
> 
Good to see the site is back up. http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com/ ;-)

Paul,
-- 
Hey, I don't block the ads, I just let Ad Zapper read them for me.
0
Lurker
7/19/2003 8:09:14 PM
Lurker wrote:
> Good to see the site is back up. http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com/ ;-)

Yes indeed. I got three volunteers to host the site (actually have a couple of
more waiting in the wings if one of the current sites gets cartooneyed), and
it's up and going again! 

When will spammers learn? Well doh, if they were smart, they wouldn't be
spammers, would they?!

-- 
Eric Lee Green  mailto:eric@badtux.org
Unix/Linux/Storage Software Engineer needs job -- 
see http://badtux.org for resume
0
Eric
7/20/2003 2:59:32 PM
In grc.spam, Eric Lee Green said...
> Lurker wrote:
>> Good to see the site is back up. http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com/ ;-)
> 
> Yes indeed. I got three volunteers to host the site (actually have a couple of
> more waiting in the wings if one of the current sites gets cartooneyed), and
> it's up and going again! 
> 
> When will spammers learn? Well doh, if they were smart, they wouldn't be
> spammers, would they?!

	"July 17, 2003: RHS unleashes its attack lawyers! The 
	evidence-eliminator-sucks.com  site was not available for some time 
	(please do not bother my ISP, they appear to be as peeved as the EE 
	guys as the rest of us)."

As peeved *with*?

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
7/20/2003 4:03:55 PM
In grc.spam, pchelp said...
> Eric Lee Green <eric@evidence-eliminator-sucks.com> wrote:
> 
>>http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com/legal2.html
> 
> Interesting.  Not written by any attorney!
> 
> Andy must have figured he'd pushed your ISP this far with success, he
> only needed to shove a bit harder to get you whacked right off the Net.
> 
> What a maroon.

 :)
 
>>Under UK law, as I mentioned, truth is not a defense in a libel lawsuit. 

Yes it is.

>>For an
>>example, a tabloid took a picture of an actress staggering out of a rehab
>>facility when she'd said she was on vacation on the French Riviera. They
>>published the photo. 

Naomi Campbell, you mean?

>>She sued -- and won, because even though it was true, it
>>harmed her reputation and under UK law she was due damages for that harm. 

She sued only for breach of confidence, and breach of the Data
Protection Act 1988, both related to the source of the newspaper's
story, and won nominal damages. Libel was simply not at issue (nor
defamation in any form).

Oh, and she lost on appeal. Next stop the House of Lords (our supreme
court).

>>Now you know why the Brits seem so veddy polite and not eager to offend... if
>>they're not, they get sued!

No, we're just naturally polite ;)

> Eric, I think you're defensible all the same.  

If what you say is true, Eric has an absolute defence against a
defamation claim in the UK.

> By their own acts they've
> given themselves an horrific reputation, unlike your example actress.

The actress is a red herring, but their bad reputation would help (Eric)
with other defences, if needed.

> Your site is a focal point of EE criticism, but it's far from the only
> one.
> 
> Anyone, anywhere who doesn't like spam and who has an inkling of EE's
> history in that respect, certainly doesn't like EE!
> 
> And their spiel?  Even a US FTC spokesperson has referred to their
> advertising as "deceptive."
> 
> Where's Milly?  She could probably cast lots more light on the legal
> likelihoods.

I think Eric (and his ISP) would do very well in a UK court, and EE
would do very badly. I imagine EE have been advised the same, but
(correctly) assumed an ISP would be unlikely to want to spend their
money fighting Eric's principle.

But (I guess?) time and cost are likely the overriding consideration for
Eric too. If he fought and won a UK defamation case against him, he'd
still be out of pocket (if you can imagine that unhappy outcome). He
might come out ahead if he counter-sued and won (perhaps better than if
he did it in the US). But unless Eric really wants that opportunity, I'd
say keeping his site(s) out of EE's back yard is a sensible measure.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
7/20/2003 4:05:23 PM
In grc.spam, Milly said...
> If what you say is true, Eric has an absolute defence against a
> defamation claim in the UK.

'If what Eric says is true, Eric has an absolute defence ...'

I got a little lost in the quotes ;)

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
7/20/2003 4:09:17 PM
In message <bfeaok$n9p$1@news.grc.com>, Eric Lee Green 
<eric@evidence-eliminator-sucks.com> writes
>Lurker wrote:
>> Good to see the site is back up. http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com/ ;-)
>
>Yes indeed. I got three volunteers to host the site (actually have a couple of
>more waiting in the wings if one of the current sites gets cartooneyed), and
>it's up and going again!

Excellent result, I saw the threads in nanae.

[]
-- 
Jim Crowther                  "It's MY computer" (tm SMG)
One way to escape spam: <http://popfile.sourceforge.net/>
And another very good one:      <http://keir.net/k9.html>
0
Jim
7/20/2003 4:11:26 PM
Eric Lee Green, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the pen to
use, wrote:

  <snip>

> I can set up a rotating DNS as needed so that typing
> "http://www.evidence-eliminator-sucks.com" takes you to a random mirror. That
> does, however, require that you have control over your apache.conf so that you
> can set up a virtual domain.
> 
>> Having several mirrors up can be very effective.
> 
> Oh definitely. For one thing, it'd make it hard for their lawyer to know where
> to send the nastygrams :-).
> 
> --
> Eric Lee Green  mailto:eric@badtux.org
> Unix/Linux/Storage Software Engineer needs job --
> see http://badtux.org for resume

  I've been following this thread, and I'd sure like to help somehow, but I have
absolutely no clue about webpage stuff (if you saw my site you'd understand. I
just wanted to 'try' it one day...no html, nothing...just 'did it'), 'hosting',
and 'mirroring' I *think* I might understand.
  My ISP gives us 5MB for having our own site, does this mean you could send me
the stuff to ftp to the directories, and lock 'em up as read only's, and this
way I would be 'hosting'? Or is that more like 'mirroring'? 
  For 'hosting', would it mean I'd have to have an cable or dsl hookup? Where I
am way out here in the woods, we can't get those yet, so I'm stuck with
dial-up.
  I use Linux also, but know even *less* about php stuff, Mysql or Postgresql,
or anything like that, and I'm pretty positive it'd be far too difficult for me
to learn it (whatever 'it' is, heh).
  Now I've just bummed myself out after rereading what I've written! It doesn't
look like I'd be able to help an ant find food if I took it to a picnic with
me. Oh well. Let me know too if there's something I can do to help. The email
address is correct in my headers.

  John
-- 
<http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html>
0
John
7/20/2003 5:00:14 PM
Hey John,
There is a fairly stubtle difference between hosting and mirroring.
Hosting is when he would move his entire site, to a new server, and point
his domain name (eviden...sucks.com etc) to the new server.
Mirroring is when you copy the entire site on to another server so that if
for any reason one isn't avaliable people can still visit the other one.
He *could* send you the files, but in reality you probably need more access
to the server in order for you to be become a true mirror. That way he can
change some pages on his server, and the changes will be automaticly copied
to the mirror.
Generally for hosting you need a server in a data center, you wouldn't have
enough bandwidth, or enough reliablity to run a site off a dsl or cable
modem.

Keep asking questions, its how you learn. I am often to chicken to do it
myself....

If anyone has anything to add to this or correct then feel free.


James
0
James
7/21/2003 5:35:50 AM
James wrote:
> There is a fairly stubtle difference between hosting and mirroring.
> Hosting is when he would move his entire site, to a new server, and point
> his domain name (eviden...sucks.com etc) to the new server.
> Mirroring is when you copy the entire site on to another server so that if
> for any reason one isn't avaliable people can still visit the other one.
> He *could* send you the files, but in reality you probably need more access
> to the server in order for you to be become a true mirror. That way he can
> change some pages on his server, and the changes will be automaticly copied
> to the mirror.

Right, and there's two kinds of mirroring, "pull" mirroring (where you just
suck down all the web pages and put them onto your site, typically in an
automated fashion), and "push" mirroring (where web pages are pushed to the
site). "pull" mirroring only works when the site is static web pages. If the
site also has CGI scripts, "push" mirroring is the only way to do it, because
pull mirroring would only get the output of the CGI scripts, not the CGI
scripts themselves. "push" mirroring requires that the computer doing the
mirroring have an account set up where ftp, WebDAV, or ssh can be used by the
central site to copy files into the site's directory in an automated fashion.
(I have a script to do it, one button and voila). In addition, if you want the
mirror to respond to a particular domain name, you must set up a vhost
(virtual host), which on machines running the Apache web server requires
access to the httpd.conf file. 

If you're mirroring an entire domain so that, e.g., going to
http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com goes to one of four servers scattered
around the Internet, what you'll typically use is either border routing (what
Akamai does, they abuse the Internet routing tables to make a given IP address
go to different servers depending on where you are), or round-robin DNS
routing. Border routing is inherently more robust since a server that goes
down can be quickly removed from the rotation (whereas it takes 4 hours or
more for DNS entries to expire), but very expensive, since you must pay
someone like Akamai who in turn pays major amounts of money to ARIN for the
addresses and to the InterNIC sites for the router access. 

So for cheaper/free sites, round robin DNS is what happens. This just puts the
IP addresses into a round robin circulation in the Internet name server, so
person A gets site 1 when they type "www.somesite.org", person B gets site 2
when they type "www.somesite.org", etc. If you're accessing such a site and it
seems to have hung, hitting the Stop button on your browser and trying to go
to the URL again will generally "un-hang" it, since you'll get a different
mirror the next time. This is acceptable for a free site, but is also why if
you go to, e.g., http://www.amazon.com , you will find that they use a single
IP address and routing table abuse, rather than having a rotating DNS for
their hundreds of web servers. A rotating DNS just doesn't respond fast enough
to a server outage to be useful for something that has to be close to 100%
reliable.

-- 
Eric Lee Green  mailto:eric@badtux.org
Unix/Linux/Storage Software Engineer needs job -- 
see http://badtux.org for resume
0
Eric
7/21/2003 11:49:58 PM
Eric Lee Green, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the pen to
use, wrote:

> James wrote:
>> There is a fairly stubtle difference between hosting and mirroring.

  <snip>

> Right, and there's two kinds of mirroring, "pull" mirroring (where you just
> suck down all the web pages and put them onto your site, typically in an
> automated fashion), and "push" mirroring (where web pages are pushed to the
> site). "pull" mirroring only works when the site is static web pages.

  <snip>

> Eric Lee Green  mailto:eric@badtux.org
> Unix/Linux/Storage Software Engineer needs job --
> see http://badtux.org for resume

  Well rat farts. Looks like there's no way I can help. If someone does happen
to figure out a way though, holler at me, 'cause it bothers the livin' piss out
of me to see the 'bad guys' get away with anything.

  John
-- 
<http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html>
0
John
7/22/2003 4:49:48 AM
John wrote:

> Eric Lee Green, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the pen to
> use, wrote:
> 
>> James wrote:
>>> There is a fairly stubtle difference between hosting and mirroring.
> 
>   <snip>
> 
>> Right, and there's two kinds of mirroring, "pull" mirroring (where you just
>> suck down all the web pages and put them onto your site, typically in an
>> automated fashion), and "push" mirroring (where web pages are pushed to the
>> site). "pull" mirroring only works when the site is static web pages.
> 
>   <snip>
> 
>> Eric Lee Green  mailto:eric@badtux.org
>> Unix/Linux/Storage Software Engineer needs job --
>> see http://badtux.org for resume
> 
>   Well rat farts. Looks like there's no way I can help. If someone does
>   happen
> to figure out a way though, holler at me, 'cause it bothers the livin' piss
> out of me to see the 'bad guys' get away with anything.

Actually, someone just pointed out to me that there *is* a way to do pull
mirroring on a site with CGI scripts. It just requires that the site be
mirrored into an FTP directory so that you can suck it down that way (via
FTP). That way the CGI scripts won't get run, you'll get the actual script. 

I'm not currently set up to do any of that, but I could be. But in any events,
I have plenty of mirrors right now.

If you want to help, link to the http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com site from
somewhere discreet on your pages. That'll help it rise in the Google rankings. 

-- 
Eric Lee Green  mailto:eric@badtux.org
Unix/Linux/Storage Software Engineer needs job -- 
see http://badtux.org for resume
0
Eric
7/23/2003 12:49:14 AM
You know, just out of curiosity, I went to EE's main page, and saw for myself 
just how stupid he is at his job. (Yes, I realize this has probably been done to 
death, but let the acolyte have some fun. Please don't plonk me for this. :-P)

Asterisks indicate boldface HTML.

[quote]
	URGENT NEWSFLASH WEDNESDAY 23 JULY 2003 - YOUR INTERNET TRAFFIC IS BEING
	ROUTED THROUGH THE *AMERICAN ISP ENTER* AND *CATASAUQUA, PENNSYLVANIA
	UNITED STATES*  - YOU ARE AT VERY HIGH RISK OF INVESTIGATION!
[/quote]

First off, my ISP is _Enter.Net_, not _Enter_. (The ".Net" is part of the 
company name and trademark, and is documented as such on the whois.) I should 
know; I work for them. Secondly, we're based in _Allentown_, not _Catasauqua_. 
Furthermore, I should hope my data is being routed though them. As I stated 
before, they're my *ISP*. Also, the IP block for the dial-up servers I connect 
to is not the IP-block for the Catasauqua servers, either.

Next on the page we have is "Demo Screenshot", which shows "Before" and "After" 
images of a hypothetical hard disk being scanned by EnCase. However, the 
screenshot shows that it is the demo version of EnCase. According to Guidance 
Software Inc.'s (the developers and/or distributors of EnCase) web site:

[quote]
	Demo Software Limitations

	The EnCase Forensic demo CD you will receive contains a version of
	EnCase that works only with the included evidence file on the CD. It is
	not possible to preview or acquire your own media with the demo version
	of EnCase Forensic.
[/quote]

Now, I don't know what this tells the folks at EE, but that tells me that the 
Demo version is merely a "simulation" model. Just because EE can create a 
screenshot that replaces the simulated data with null zeros doesn't mean that it 
can actually do anything worth charging for. On a similar note, since GSI 
requires a request form just to _get_ a demo disk, I'd love to know how they 
filled it out. Somehow, I don't think they were honest.

Next Up:

[quote]
	You are being watched... how about your *Boss*? Do you surf the internet
	and send *E-mail* at work? Your work PC will be *full of evidence*. It
	is  becoming common in the workplace for companies to copy and
	investigate the contents of workers computers out of hours - without
	your consent or knowledge. This is perfectly legal and it is happening
	*now!* Your job could be at risk, what would happen to you if you *lost
	your job*? People like you are losing their jobs right now because of
	their Internet activities in America and the UK.
[/quote]

Of course it's legal. And I don't know how things work in the UK, but if I 
attempted to interfere with my bosses' monitoring of my internet activities, I'd 
be more likely to lose my job over _that_ than what I've been surfing.

I could go on, piece-by-piece, but I don't have the energy for that. I will say 
one other thing, though: A lot of what he charges you $149.95 + tax for you can 
do yourself for free with a regular run of degrag and/or low-level formats.

Sorry if I annoyed any of you with this. :-P
-- 
/z
ditmarst@enter.net
http://www.enter.net/~ditmarst/
Contact me for messenger IDs.
0
Thomas
7/23/2003 2:51:44 AM
Eric Lee Green, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the =
pen to
use, wrote:

  <snip>

> If you want to help, link to the http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com=
 site
> from somewhere discreet on your pages. That'll help it rise in the Go=
ogle
> rankings.

  Okay, I'll do that.

  Another thing, have you or anyone else seen this? When you go to the =
EE
website, a javascript window wants to open, and this is what is says
(cut-n-pasted, so it's exact, and the address to the link I'll put in a=
fter) :

Public Information Warning from Evidence-Eliminator.com
=20
 Our server has detected that you have surfed-in from the Yahoo search =
engine.
Beware three "Cyber-Stalkers" (nut-cases) abusing search engines to lie=
 to the
public about Evidence Eliminator? and damage your privacy:
=20
 Stalker #1. Mr Eric Lee Green ("Evidence Eliminator Sucks") - Hate cam=
paigner.
 Stalker #2. Radsoft.Net - failed competitor selling junk imitation sof=
tware.
 Stalker #3. Mr Keith Little AKA 'PCHELP' - Hate campaigner & alleged
child-stalker.
=20
 Such is the nature of the Internet. If you are exposed to any maliciou=
s
harassment from the above-named idiots, please click here for help and
information. We hope you enjoy your visit to Evidence Eliminator.com!
 Regards
EE Support Team

  The 'here' when clicked takes you, of course, to:

  http://www.evidence-eliminator.com/dis-information.shtml

  Thing is, EE is now *extremely* public with libel and slander. Surely=

something can be done about it?

  John
--=20
<http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html>
0
John
7/23/2003 8:09:34 PM
In message 
<3266999.b9hNWqfG7s@Buy_me_a_shrubbery_or_I_will_say_NI!_to_you!.com>, 
John <Yochanon@yahoo.com> writes
[..]
>  Another thing, have you or anyone else seen this? When you go to the EE
>website, a javascript window wants to open, and this is what is says
>(cut-n-pasted, so it's exact, and the address to the link I'll put in after) :
>
>Public Information Warning from Evidence-Eliminator.com

[..]

That looks like desperation to me. They must be hurting.

[..]

>  Thing is, EE is now *extremely* public with libel and slander. Surely
>something can be done about it?

Not easily I would think, or at least not cheaply. But the more 
desperate and obvious they get, the less people will believe their crap.

It works from Google too of course. Even with Prox in line, so they're 
getting around the Prox popup filter. :-(

-- 
 From invalid, Reply To works.
Kevin A.
0
Kevin
7/23/2003 9:16:10 PM
John <Yochanon@yahoo.com> wrote:

....
>  Thing is, EE is now *extremely* public with libel and slander. Surely=

The situation hasn't changed substantially.  The "dis-information" page
(so aptly named!) seems pretty much unchanged for well over a year.


>something can be done about it?

I'd happily spend the time to sue them, given financing.

Andy Churchill knows the true facts WRT the onetime false claim by
Michael Paris that I had supposedly accused his daughter of some vague
impropriety.  In fact, I had questioned Paris himself via email as to
whether he had engaged in possibly-false use of his daughter's name in
connection with the 1998 "Hackerproof98" scam.  When, much later, Paris
chose to intentionally misrepresent the facts on his website, I
published this page in response:

http://www.pc-help.org/ld/daughter.htm

Andy Churchill, who at the time had apparently formed a business
relationship with Michael Paris, then warped Paris' already-twisted tale
to the point of absurdity, and called it "child stalking."  Such a
statement is easily proven to be deliberately malicious and deliberately
false -- i.e., it is defamation by any legal measure.

I have sent that link to Andy.  My website logs appear to indicate that
he accessed the page.

Because Andy continues to grossly misrepresent the facts, even while he
is in possession of the true facts, I am fully confident that for this
alone I could take him to the legal cleaners.  Not to mention other
defamatory statements; and I could add several counts of copyright
violation for his publication of several pages and images from my site,
which I have demanded that he remove -- which demands he openly flaunts.

But suing Andy would cost a small fortune, and I have bills enough
already.

pchelp
0
pchelp
7/23/2003 10:48:00 PM
> If you're mirroring an entire domain so that, e.g., going to
> http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com goes to one of four servers scattered
> around the Internet, what you'll typically use is either border routing
(what
> Akamai does, they abuse the Internet routing tables to make a given IP
address
> go to different servers depending on where you are), or round-robin DNS
> routing. Border routing is inherently more robust since a server that goes
> down can be quickly removed from the rotation (whereas it takes 4 hours or
> more for DNS entries to expire), but very expensive, since you must pay
> someone like Akamai who in turn pays major amounts of money to ARIN for
the
> addresses and to the InterNIC sites for the router access.

I am interested in this border routing, and how it works. Are you able to
explain it any more or point me to a good link about it?


Thanks James

PS, I don't get any popup on there site. But if you want you could try
google's beta toolbar which includes by far the best popup stopper i have
every used. I haven't used Prox though :)
0
James
7/23/2003 11:46:49 PM
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:16:10 -0700, "Kevin A." <klex49@2kevin.net.invalid>
wrote:

>>  Thing is, EE is now *extremely* public with libel and slander. Surely
>>something can be done about it?
>
>Not easily I would think, or at least not cheaply. But the more 
>desperate and obvious they get, the less people will believe their crap.

In the U.S., a libel suit would be difficult, but not impossible.

Under British law, however, the presumption of innocence is on 
the defamed or libeled person, and the person who made the claim
has to PROVE they are right in what they said.






             The truth IS out there, 
but most people don't recognize it when they see it!
0
Da
7/24/2003 12:09:26 AM
In message
<3266999.b9hNWqfG7s@Buy_me_a_shrubbery_or_I_will_say_NI!_to_you!.com>,
John <Yochanon@yahoo.com> writes
[]
>  Thing is, EE is now *extremely* public with libel and slander. Surely
>something can be done about it?

I just added this to their (yuck) web-input:

        Stop your affiliates spamming me, or I will sue, as that will
        have demonstrated a disregard of the DPA.  (Some of your
        'affiliates' don't seem to understand UK law.)

        As an aside, your campaign against Eric Lee Green has resulted
        in huge publicity for you.  Well done.


-- 
Jim Crowther                  "It's MY computer" (tm SMG)
One way to escape spam: <http://popfile.sourceforge.net/>
And another very good one:      <http://keir.net/k9.html>
0
Jim
7/24/2003 1:56:41 AM
In grc.spam, Da Kat said...
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:16:10 -0700, "Kevin A." <klex49@2kevin.net.invalid>
>>>  Thing is, EE is now *extremely* public with libel and slander. Surely
>>>something can be done about it?
>>
>>Not easily I would think, or at least not cheaply. But the more 
>>desperate and obvious they get, the less people will believe their crap.
> 
> In the U.S., a libel suit would be difficult, but not impossible.
> 
> Under British law, however, the presumption of innocence is on 
> the defamed or libeled person, and the person who made the claim
> has to PROVE they are right in what they said.

You've got it backwards, I'm afraid. And it's a procedural practicality
rather than a reversal of the usual presumption of innocence.

To the extent that it might be described as a presumption of innocence,
it's not the case (as you put it) that it's 'on' the defamed or libeled
person (whose guilt or innocence doesn't arise), but rather that for
defamation cases it's generally not 'on' the defamer (who, in
non-defamation cases, being the 'accused' party usually doesn't have to
prove anything).

Clear? ;)

Say, er, "Andy" publishes a web page which claims that "Eric" beats his
dog. 

Eric (who has never beaten his dog, and who is held in high regard by
his dog-lovin' friend and colleagues) sues Andy for defamation (libel). 

Andy's defence is that it isn't libel, because it's true. Truth
(justification) is an absolute defence to a defamation claim under UK
law (and US law, I *think*).

Should Andy (the 'innocent until proven guilty' defendant) have to prove
that Eric does beat his dog, or should Eric (the plaintiff) have to
prove he doesn't? 

The general UK (and US) principle is that the defendant is innocent
until proven guilty, and that the plaintiff has to prove his case - or
lose it (even if the defendant offers no defence at all).

But under UK defamation law, Andy (the defendant) would have to prove
that Eric (the plaintiff) does beat his dog. *That* is the exceptional
procedural practicality of UK defamation law.

Is US law different (I don't know, myself)? If so, how is Eric supposed
to prove that he *doesn't* beat his dog? 

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
7/24/2003 2:33:21 AM
In message <5d7nvzfpftz9$.dlg@imilly.com>, Milly <?@?.?.invalid> writes
>
>Clear? ;)

Mud. :(

Thank you for explaining it so far...

-- 
Jim Crowther                  "It's MY computer" (tm SMG)
One way to escape spam: <http://popfile.sourceforge.net/>
And another very good one:      <http://keir.net/k9.html>
0
Jim
7/24/2003 2:45:16 AM
Jim Crowther <Don't.use.Lockdown@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> In message <5d7nvzfpftz9$.dlg@imilly.com>, Milly <?@?.?.invalid> writes
>>
>> Clear? ;)
>
> Mud. :(
>
> Thank you for explaining it so far...

Et tu, Brutus?

-- 
Robert
List of Lists - http://lists.gpick.com/
Eric Howe's Privacy and Security Site -
http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/main-nf.htm
0
Robert
7/24/2003 1:08:03 PM
James <news@jambe.cjb.net> wrote:
>> If you're mirroring an entire domain so that, e.g., going to
>> http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com goes to one of four servers
>> scattered around the Internet, what you'll typically use is either
>> border routing (what Akamai does, they abuse the Internet routing tables
>> to make a given IP address go to different servers depending on where
>> you are), or round-robin DNS routing. Border routing is inherently more
>> robust since a server that goes down can be quickly removed from the
>> rotation (whereas it takes 4 hours or more for DNS entries to expire),
>> but very expensive, since you must pay someone like Akamai who in turn
>> pays major amounts of money to ARIN for the addresses and to the
>> InterNIC sites for the router access.
>
> I am interested in this border routing, and how it works. Are you able to
> explain it any more or point me to a good link about it?

I believe Cisco is the definitive source.

http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ics/icsbgp4.htm#10579

-- 
Robert
List of Lists - http://lists.gpick.com/
Eric Howe's Privacy and Security Site -
http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/main-nf.htm
0
Robert
7/24/2003 1:16:29 PM
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:33:21 +0100, Milly <@.....> wrote:

>Andy's defence is that it isn't libel, because it's true. Truth
>(justification) is an absolute defence to a defamation claim under UK
>law (and US law, I *think*).

Under U.S. law, NOT under Britich law.

THis was explained extensively in a recent PBS show, 
where an author was accused of being a Holocaust revisionist.

The person who accused him had to prove what she'd written was true.
As the defamed, he simply had to do nothing, until such proof was made, 
then he could defend himself or try to otherwise explain away what was shown.

In the U.S., he would have had to prove the statements were made maliciously
and even then, it's no sure bet he'd have won.




             The truth IS out there, 
but most people don't recognize it when they see it!
0
Da
7/24/2003 11:19:07 PM
Da Kat wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:33:21 +0100, Milly <@.....> wrote:
>
>> Andy's defence is that it isn't libel, because it's true. Truth
>> (justification) is an absolute defence to a defamation claim under UK
>> law (and US law, I *think*).
>
> Under U.S. law, NOT under Britich law.
>
> THis was explained extensively in a recent PBS show,
> where an author was accused of being a Holocaust revisionist.
>
> The person who accused him had to prove what she'd written was true.
> As the defamed, he simply had to do nothing, until such proof was
> made,
> then he could defend himself or try to otherwise explain away what
> was shown.
>
> In the U.S., he would have had to prove the statements were made
> maliciously and even then, it's no sure bet he'd have won.


This doesn't change that truth is a defense against a defamation suit. It
just changes where the burden of proof is.

By what you describe, if I accuse someone of defamation and they are telling
the truth, even though they have to proove it, the truth is still a defense.
This is only different in where the burden lies compared to a situation
where I'd have to prove that the party I am accusing is lying.

Regards,
Sam
-- 
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
7/24/2003 11:40:51 PM
In grc.spam, Sam Schinke said...
> Da Kat wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:33:21 +0100, Milly <@.....> wrote:
>>> Andy's defence is that it isn't libel, because it's true. Truth
>>> (justification) is an absolute defence to a defamation claim under UK
>>> law (and US law, I *think*).
 >>
>> Under U.S. law, NOT under Britich law.
>>
>> THis was explained extensively in a recent PBS show,
>> where an author was accused of being a Holocaust revisionist.
>>
>> The person who accused him had to prove what she'd written was true.
>> As the defamed, he simply had to do nothing, until such proof was
>> made,
>> then he could defend himself or try to otherwise explain away what
>> was shown.
>>
>> In the U.S., he would have had to prove the statements were made
>> maliciously and even then, it's no sure bet he'd have won.
> 
> This doesn't change that truth is a defense against a defamation suit. It
> just changes where the burden of proof is.
> 
> By what you describe, if I accuse someone of defamation and they are telling
> the truth, even though they have to proove it, the truth is still a defense.
> This is only different in where the burden lies compared to a situation
> where I'd have to prove that the party I am accusing is lying.

Yep.

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
7/25/2003 2:31:13 AM
In grc.spam, Da Kat said...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:33:21 +0100, Milly <@.....> wrote:
> 
>>Andy's defence is that it isn't libel, because it's true. Truth
>>(justification) is an absolute defence to a defamation claim under UK
>>law (and US law, I *think*).
> 
> Under U.S. law, NOT under Britich law.

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. 

> THis was explained extensively in a recent PBS show, 

Ah well, if you saw it on television ... ;)

Seriously though, if you don't want to take it from me, five minutes
googling should set you right.

> where an author was accused of being a Holocaust revisionist.
> 
> The person who accused him had to prove what she'd written was true.
> As the defamed, he simply had to do nothing, until such proof was made, 
> then he could defend himself or try to otherwise explain away what was shown.

Just what my last post described.

David Irving (an Englishman, as it happens) alleged defamation by
Deborah Lipstadt (an American, as it happens) by her accusing him of
being a Holocaust revisionist (amongst other related and nasty things).

Lipstadt's accusations were held to be defamatory. Her principle defence
was justification; that what she said was substantially true. 

She was required to prove it; she did so; his suit failed. Because
justification is an absolute defence to a defamation claim under UK law.

> In the U.S., he would have had to prove the statements were made maliciously
> and even then, it's no sure bet he'd have won.

As a public figure (in the 'field' of Nazi history, anyway), that's
right. 

But in my "Andy" and "Eric" example (this time if pursued in the US), if
Eric was not a public figure, Eric would not have to prove that Andy
made the dog-beating accusations with malice (i.e. with knowledge of
their falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth). Only that they
were false. I still don't see how Eric might achieve that, leaving him
without legal remedy about the false and defamatory accusations. There
are pros and cons to both systems. 

Back to the root of this topic, and on the very reasonable assumptions
that Keith and Eric are at least as defamed by EE as they have defamed
EE, and that Keith and Eric have demonstrable truth on their side, I
think they would fare much better in the UK courts than the US courts.
Time and money permitting, alas.

>              The truth IS out there, 
> but most people don't recognize it when they see it!

And they say Americans don't understand irony .... ;)

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
7/25/2003 2:37:15 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Sophos white paper describes how spammers are taking advantage of CSS to conceal their spam from anti-spam filters
A white paper published by Sophos today describes how spammers have taken advantage of the Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) feature in HTML to disguise their bulk emails. The CSS web language is being used to disguise spam messages from less sophisticated anti-spam filters, and to recycle old HTML-based tricks. "Sophos research reveals that spammers are exploiting the features of CSS to sneak their messages past the less powerful anti-spam filters," said Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant for Sophos. "Advanced email filtering solutions such as Sophos PureM...

Spam, spam, spam, spam
I sent this message to my anti-spam customers today! ************************************* Greetings to our anti-spam customers! A few of our customers have expressed concern over the amount of spam that is being delivered to your mailboxes. Alas, spam is back up to almost incomprehensible numbers. Postini estimates 94% of all email is now spam. Here is an interesting article about it: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/spam-back-to-94-of-all-e-mail/?partner=rss&emc=rss What does this mean for you and your users? If we can block 99% of the junk destined for you...

spam spam spam
hi, my greylisting mechanism is blocking too much mails. not only spam, its blocking web.de and so on. how can i configure this thing right? my denysoft_greylist.dbm has 2900000 ips in it. am i able to delete it or such thing? thanks m. -- _______________________ http://www.salbinger.de _______________________ Michael Salbinger wrote: > hi, > > my greylisting mechanism is blocking too much mails. > not only spam, its blocking web.de and so on. > how can i configure this thing right? > my denysoft_greylist.dbm has 2900000 ips in it. > am i ab...

KnujOn takes on "The Worst" spam sites
http://www.castlecops.com/t189687-The_Worst.html [...] "We now have an enormous amount of data and know exactly which sites are responsible for the most instances for our clients. This week we�re launching a program that will target and expose the most active spam sites in our records. We are starting with number 1 and working backwards. We�re starting with mantipu.com an �Internet pharmacy� that has the highest number of incidences for our clients. You will be able to follow along here: http://www.knujon.com/worst.html Our belief is that if we take a little time each week ...

Blocking SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM
Here is a goody.. Does anyone know of a way to extract the list of blocked e-mail domains (about 2000) from a client's account (mine) so can use to to create a block list at the GWIA? Thanks "caind"@ stcecilia.edu wrote: > > Here is a goody.. Does anyone know of a way to extract the list of > blocked e-mail domains (about 2000) from a client's account (mine) so > can use to to create a block list at the GWIA? I don't know of a way to do that, but are you already also using RBLs at the GWIA? A few good RBLs there will kill a huge amo...

Redirecting url to another site and then back to my site
Hi, I have a site for eg:  www.something.com I want to do the following. Everytime a user types the url, he should be redirected to http://abc.com/redirect?something.com and then back to www.something.com This should work even for dynamic pages. For eg: My site has pages like http://www.something.com/Showlink.aspx?ID=22121  So i would want that when ever user types the url, it should be http://abc.com/redirect?something.com/Showlink.aspx?ID=22121 How can I achieve this. I saw Url redirection etc stuff but need some clear idea on how to go about it, where to impl...

Spam fight spam site that scan the internet
http://www.proxyprotector.com This site regularly scan the internet looking for open (or misconfigured) proxy server and logged it then denied to the access. It help to keep lower abuse of spamming. -- NS On Sun, 18 May 2003 16:06:14 -0700 "Nice Shot" <nis@noispam.non> wrote: > http://www.proxyprotector.com > > This site regularly scan the internet looking for open (or > misconfigured) proxy server and logged it then denied to the access. > It help to keep lower abuse of spamming. I wonder who appointed them net police? Anyway, it's fun t...

Back button to take document focus back too
Name: Dave Smith Email: da__smithathotmaildotcom Product: Firefox Summary: Back button to take document focus back too Comments: <a href="#big-nose">Big Nose</a> <a href="#balloon-nose">Balloon Nose</a> <-- Person selects this <a href="#massive-nose">Massive Nose</a> <a href="#whopping-nose">Whopping Nose</a> <h2 id="big-nose">Here now</h2> <-- Person arrives here with focus Person now selects Back. The page moves up, but the focus remains at the heading. ...

OT: Spam, spam, spam
There must be dozens of ways to stop spam in email, too bad there's no way to stop snail mail and phone spam. The upcoming elections here in Arizona have the usual candidates and we also have a whole bunch of propositions on the ballot causing dozens of recorded messages left on my answering machine and huge amounts of junk mail touting candidates or ballot propositions (not to mention the non-stop TV and radio ads). Unfortunately, nobody considers political candidates or groups representing ballot propositions as spammers, I guess there's no way to end it? I kno...

SPAM, SPAM, SPAMMY, SPAM
I have finally found a use for SPAM. Recently I have got into writing short stories (of a rather "not for here" nature) and some of the names the mail is purportedly being sent from has become a good source of character names. Keep em coming I say. :( Jim -- Pye, James Pye, chmod 007, The Ultimate Open Source The geeks will inherit the earth, one binary digit by binary digit at a time... That is just a plain weird hobby. :) "Jim Pye" <jimpye-removethis-@-tomakeasensibleaddress-myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:1y9gk.9677$g35.5586...

TAke me back...
Name: Linda Roth Email: ljrothatroadrunnerdotcom Product: Firefox Summary: TAke me back... Comments: Get me out of here...I down loaded your product after getting so feed up at seeing it on my screen every time I booted up...Thought it was just a security system...It has now changed my format...no icon for favorites etc... PLEASE get it off my system and give me back what I had...I have no interrest to read your umpteen pages on how to use this service nor how to find my "favorites" Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.11) Ge...

Forcing SaveCustomPersonalizationState, Part II
I'm using webparts and personalization as building blocks in a content management system. To briefly describe it, administrators create their content from page pieces that are individual webparts and arrange them around a zone. Once saved, the page loops through the page zones and exports the part data into a custom database table. When users browse the website, they hit one central content page that reads the page guid from the query and then returns the part data from the DB. The original problem of personalization was that the webpart state would persist between page requests. In or...

Back button vs. button created to take user back
I think this is a question about state? I have a form that is basically a datagrid that displays the results of a search. The search criteria is keyed in on a another screen. So I have a search form. Then a form that displays the results of the search (with a Select column on each line), and then a form that shows the entire record where a user can update the contents of the record. I want to include a button on the update form to send them back to the search selection result screen. When I used a transfer, it brought the search selection results screen back but it showed all rec...

how to take back up
Hi, I am trying to take back up of my project named "mfunds".Can anyone tell me how to take backup? If i copied this project in new folder(backup),i couldn't open in Visual studio 2003.It gives error message" Unable to open  mfunds the file path  doesn't correspond to  the URL.The two need to map to the same server location .Object not found".   Can anyone  tell me how to take .Net projects?Usually in work environment how people take back up?   Thanks, Karthika.     To have a backup just ordinary File copy is enough. I think ypur broplem is ...

Web resources about - Spammer strikes back, takes down site - grc.spam

Facebook Donates $250K Recovered From Spammers To UAB
... grant from Facebook Monday, and the funding comes not from the company’s coffers, but from money that Facebook has recovered from spammers around ...

Updates in Facebook’s Fight Against Spam and Spammers - Facebook
Facebook Security hat eine Notiz mit dem Titel Updates in Facebook’s Fight Against Spam and Spammers geschrieben. Du kannst den vollständigen ...

Facebook wins $3 million, injunctive relief in spammer lawsuit
After a years-long battle in court, Facebook won a $3 million-plus cash settlement and permanent injunction against the company behind Power.com ...

Help us nail spammers - Twitter Blogs
Today we’ve added another tool to our spam fighting toolbox that will give users the ability to flag bad accounts on Twitter. Folks can now help ...

Spotless - Block Instagram spammers automatically on the App Store on iTunes
Get Spotless - Block Instagram spammers automatically on the App Store. See screenshots and ratings, and read customer reviews.


Link-shrinking attracts spammers and scammers
On the short-messaging service Twitter, space is at a premium: You've got 140 characters to make your point, and you probably don't want to waste ...

What's old is new again: Spammers revived old schemes in March quarter - spam, antispam, applications ...
Volumes remain steady as junkmeisters return to old spam scams Spammers revived some old scams during the first three months of the year to wrap ...

FBI shuts down suspected spammer
A man described as a leading sender of spam in the US says an FBI raid on his home office has halted his email operation. -

'Timeshare spammer' set to plead guilty
A man known as 'The Timeshare Spammer' has said he will plead guilty to one count of violating anti-spam laws. -

Resources last updated: 1/20/2016 9:47:22 AM