Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 19:44:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Dean Anderson To: Matthew Sullivan Cc: abuse@xo.com, hostmaster@uq.edu.au, m.aboelwafa@its.uq.edu.au Subject: Re: Ref: Complaint regarding www.sorbs.net (209.220.100.158) 1) www.dnsbl.sorbs.net is a subdomain a site whose main page is in XO space. It is the organization conducting abuse, and which must follow the XO rules. Its nameservice is handled from XO space: sorbs.net. 15970 IN NS ns1.sorbs.net. ns1.sorbs.net. 15970 IN A 209.220.100.158 We note also that the http://www.dnsbl.sorbs.net/ site is listed right on the www.sorbs.net page, and is very clearly an activity of SORBS.NET: ================ from www.sorbs.net 209.220.100.158 Announcement It is my pleasure to announce that SORBS is now running & hosting a DNS based block list (such as SPEWS, and MAPS etc). It is free to use for the public and details on how to use it maybe obtained at: http://www.dnsbl.sorbs.net/ ================ from www.sorbs.net 209.220.100.158 2) The First Amendment never permits one to make false statements. False statements, even in error, are still actionable. This makes them unlawful, and a violation of the XO AUP. The defenses against defamation are as follows: * The statement is true. In this case, there are two alleged facts stated or implied by Mr. Sullivan: 1) That the OSF does not exist 2) That the 130.105/16 is stolen. "Hijacked" is the term used. Both of these facts asserted by Mr. Sullivan are false, and are easily seen to be false: 1) The OSF has merged to form the Open Group, and osf.org refers to opengroup.org, and 2) opengroup.org is a customer of Av8 Internet. Mr Sullivan appears unable to avail himself of this defense. * The statement is an opinion. An opinion is a statement which can't be proved true or false. A statement couched as an opinion may be defamatory if it implies false and defamatory facts. Obviously, as much as Mr Sullivan seems to be trying to recast his original statements, they are still implied facts which can be proven false. Mr Sullivan appears unable to avail himself of this defense. * The plaintiff is "libel proof". This means that a convicted criminal cannot bring a libel complaint against a false charge of another crime. Mr Sullivan appears unable to avail himself of this defense. * The defendant has a conditional or absolute privelege. That is, they are a lawyer, employer, Law Enforcement or otherwise have some conditional privilege, which Mr. Sullivan does not seem to have. Mr Sullivan appears unable to avail himself of this defense. 3) The Sherman Anti Trust Act also limits the actions of Group Boycotts and prohibits them from causing harm to lawful business. This has been demonstrated on point in Exactis V. MAPS, which was settled, but not before the Court rejected the First Amendment defense raised by MAPS. 4) Nothing in Mr. Sullivan's remarks indicate a defense on the claims I have asserted. An excellent article on the subject of Defamation, Commercial Disparagement, and False Advertising written by Julia Huston, ESQ. can be found at http://www.bromsun.com/pub/professional/JH_SCP_MCLE_Article.pdf 5) We have hired a lawyer in Australia to pursue the case. On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Matthew Sullivan wrote: > Hi Abuse, > > I have been made aware of the following complaint: > > > It is come to my attention that Matthew Sullivan, operator of > > SORBS.NET is willfully, and maliciously making false statements > > through his SORBS.NET site: > > > > http://www.dnsbl.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/lookup?IP=130.105.0.0 > > You will note, the site Mr Anderson refers to is actually addressed as: > 203.101.254.254, and is not within XO ip space. Also, whilst I am the > operator of the http://www.sorbs.net/ site, I am not the owner of > http://www.dnsbl.sorbs.net/ - this site is owned by the SORBS company, I > am mearly one of a team that administers the site. > > > >> The full listing is: > > >> > > >> Netblock 130.105.0.0 / 16 Summary The OSF doesn't exist anymore, > > >> making this hijacked. Announced By [1784] Global NAPs Networks > > >> Entry Created Wed May 21 11:51:29 2003 AEST Record Updated Wed > > >> May 21 11:52:38 2003 AEST Currently active and flagged to be > > >> published in DNS Spam has not been received from this netblock. > > > > The 209.220.100.158 site has no such statement on it. > > > > > That The OSF no longer exists That the 130.105/16 is hijacked > > > > Neither of these claims are true and are provably false. > > I refer Dean to:http://www.dnsbl.sorbs.net/FAQ.html#34 which states > amongst other things that the Zombie/Hijacked list is a list of > suspected Zombie or Hijacked ranges, and welcomes the true owners of the > address space to provide proof that the block has been legally > transfered. Until such time proof is received the list will be > indicated as 'Suspect Zombie' > > In the case of the OSF, it appears the OSF is now 'The Open Group' and > according to information provided for me has been for some time, > following a merger of the OSF and another (details of which I have > recorded, but do not have to hand at this present moment) > > > Dean Anderson, his companies Av8 Internet and Plain Aviation, > > 130.105/16, and the OSF, are well known and easilly found. There is > > no possibility that Mr. Sullivan could reasaonably have believed > > these statements true. Therefore, the false statements are made with > > malice. > > SORBS makes mistakes from time to time, but neither makes true or false > statements with malice. > > > These statements are made with the intent to cause economic harm to > > Dean Anderson and his companies, and to interfere with contracts > > between his companies and the OSF as well as contracts with current > > and future customers. > > Actually the statements SORBS makes are to protect private property from > address space that is in the opinion of SORBS is not trustworthy. This > is not a statement as to whether Dean Anderson or AV8 or Plain Aviation > are trustworthy, just a statement that SORBS does not trust the said > parties. Further, should Mr Anderson provide verifiable proof that his > networks in question have been legitimately transferred from their > apparent owners SORBS will promptly and happily accept traffic from > those address ranges. SORBS will also publish a correcting statement > with regard to any incorrect/invalid listings on verifiable proof. > > > Wrongly calling an ASN or IP space hijacked may subject that person > > to a lawsuit for tortious interference with a contract, defamation, > > commercial disparagement, intentional and negligent > > misrepresentation, unfair business practices, and false advertising > > in violation of the Lanham Act. > > Unfortunately Mr Anderson is assuming that juristiction is that of the > USA. (Which of course would allow the statements of SORBS to fall under > the protection of the First Ammendment.) > > > We believe that this activity is in violation of your AUP, which > > prohibits unlawful activity, and which is (from > > http://www.xo.com/legal) > > > > * Is unlawful, threatening, abusive, harassing, libelous, > > defamatory, obscene, deceptive, fraudulent, invasive of another's > > privacy, tortious, indecent, pornographic or inaccurate > > > > * Victimizes, harasses, degrades, or intimidates an individual > > or group of individuals on the basis of religion, gender, sexual > > orientation, race, ethnicity, age, disability or any other reason > > > > We ask that you take the appropriate action to halt this activity. > > As stated above, the relevant site is hosted outside of XO IP space. > > > We also note that 209.220.100.157 (www.isux.com) is operated by the > > same person, and threatens mailbombing, which is also in violation of > > your AUP. > > The www.isux.com website was written before the AUP was ammended to its > present form and therefore before the possibility of such a violation > was occuring, now I have been made aware of the possible violation the > page has been ammended.... However, the statements on the site (both > before and after the ammendment) are clearly a message to individuals, > groups of people or companies that engage in spamming. Unless Mr > Anderson is actually a spammer there is no possibility of threats made > towards him or his companies.... If on the other hand if Mr Anderson is > indicating that he or his companies are in the habit of spamming, and > therefore the site is threatening him, I would like to remind him that > sending spam to the MX's of isux.com [mail.isux.com & mailbox.isux.com] > is a violation of many laws in most states of America, and is soon to be > deemed criminal in Australia. Not to mention if it is sent via > smtp.isux.com the following law would apply: > > A Connecticut law enacted in June 1999 makes it illegal to send > unsolicited bulk > e-mail containing falsified > routing information in > violation of a provider 's > policies , or to distribute > software designed to falsify routing information. A court may > exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who uses a > computer or computer network located in Connecticut. > > > Yours > > Matthew > >