Group: news.admin.net-abuse.email · Group Profile
Date: Oct 5, 2006 22:34
>> Hey dip shit, thanks for posting that. It clearly says that the
>> default would have been granted had the plaintiff asked so what
>> Lindord says is accurate in a sense.
>
> Mr. Linford's statement is false nevertheless. It sounds like you're
> a kool-aid drinking fanatic. Like all fanatics, I'm sure you won't
> let the facts get in the way of your beliefs.
Speaking of facts, be sure to notify the rest of the world when any of
the following happens:
1. You receive any money from spamhaus due to a judgment in a U.S.
court
2. They apologize
3. They remove you from their blocklist
> Unlike the previous cases against Spamhaus, our case resulted in a
> judgment.
A "default" judgment which merely means that the defendant didn't bother
showing up for trial. It wasn't necessary since the U.S. has no say-so
over how a U.K. based blocklist operates.
> We have moved on to the enforcement phase to ensure the
> courts ruling and permanent injunction against Spamhaus is upheld.
Be sure to send me a poast card when *that* happens :)
Perhaps you should hold your breath, save some oxygen for people who
matter :)
> Warmest regards,
Hugs and kisses :)
> Dave Linhardt
Yer pal Chad :)
--
COOSN-266-06-70683
Skepticult
| 
