Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:15:43 -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) Since your www.dnsbl.sorbs.net is hosted and supported by The University of Queensland, they are a party to the abuse conducted, and they may be a party to any suit brought against this activity. I suspected that you might be the only one to deal with email issues for the UQ. That is why someone at the Univiserity besides yourself should be cc'd. I would cc the Provost, but I couldn't find an address for them. Your assistance is needed to obtain that address. The information I included about the domain sorbs.net is correct. The same SORBS organization (possibly unincorporated) runs the subdomains of SORBS.NET. SORBS is not an ISP, and cannot claim it is not responsible for the content of the subdomains. Your attempts at diversion are fruitless. Also, I "have not confirmed that the OSF doesn't exist anymore". This is a further (quite obvious, I might add) false statement. It is not up to me to prove that your statements are false before you are not allowed to make them. It is your responsiblity to avoid making false statements. On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Matthew Sullivan wrote: > Mr Anderson, > > First stop cc'ing random people at The University of Queensland on this > mail. There is noone more appropriate at UQ to deal with this, cc'ing > the routemaster, or other random people will get you blocked from > sending mails to UQ period. If you need to cc anyone else you can add > 'abuse@uq.edu.au' and 'postmaster@uq.edu.au', which as you have probably > worked out, I deal with mail to both as my day job. > > Dean Anderson wrote: > > > 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: > > Get your facts right before ranting, it will make you look less > irritating and more professional. > > ;; QUESTION SECTION: > ;dnsbl.sorbs.net. IN NS > > ;; ANSWER SECTION: > dnsbl.sorbs.net. 149632 IN NS rbldns0.sorbs.net. And you will be held accountable for the false statements you make. > dnsbl.sorbs.net. 149632 IN NS proxycheck.caravan.ru. > dnsbl.sorbs.net. 149632 IN NS ns1.twisted4life.com. > dnsbl.sorbs.net. 149632 IN NS bl16.bl.xs4all.nl. > dnsbl.sorbs.net. 149632 IN NS sorbs.net.dsbl.org. > > ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: > bl16.bl.xs4all.nl. 27116 IN A 194.109.6.156 > sorbs.net.dsbl.org. 24702 IN A 205.231.29.247 > rbldns0.sorbs.net. 8897 IN A 203.15.51.34 > proxycheck.caravan.ru. 27438 IN A 217.23.144.156 > > ns1.sorbs.net handles delagation for dnsbl.sorbs.net which is as you > correctly point out a subdomain of sorbs.net. However following your > logic so far you should also be threatening the root nameservers as > sorbs.net is a subdomain of .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 > > and...? As far as I can see there is still no violation of policy on > any service hosted or routed by XO. > > > 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. > > Prove the SORBS opinion is false. You have been asked for this proof at > other times, by others, you have yet to prove you own the said IP > space. Further you are well known to publically bluster and threaten > any site that lists any of your IP space as not trustworthy. (By way of > open relay or that the said IP space does not belong to you)... Yet > the simplest way of removing yourself from the SORBS, and other lists > would be to simply prove you did not steal the IP space, instead of > threatening legal action. > > > 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. > > Thank you for confiming that the OSF does not exist as the OSF anymore > and it infact was merged into 'The Open Group' as I previously commented. > > As I said before, FAQ #34 states clearly that SORBS lists suspected > Zombie Networks and Hijacked Networks. Yours are suspected and in my > opinion with good reason. > > > * 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. > > Then prove them, that's all I, SORBS and all many other people are asking. > > > * 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. > > The Sherman Act has nothing to do with a UK resident working in Australia. > > > 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. > > Good, I look forward to hearing from them, you can direct correspondance > to my legal representative Jeremy Malcom of Perth (address below). No > doubt they have already told you that neither the First Amendment, nor > the Sherman Act, or the US libel laws apply in Australia. > > They have also probably told you that barrattary is a criminally > chargable offense in Australia. > > Please note, as you have chosen the legal action route I will no longer > be responding to your emails as they are not legally binding in > Australia as they are easily forgable, further correspondance to me > should be sent to: > > Matthew Sullivan > PO Box 6496 > St Lucia > QLD 4072 > Australia > > If you wish, and is nessesary I will be supply the registered company > address of SORBS at request. > > Any legal correspondance directed at me personally should be directed to: > > Jeremy Malcom > PO Box 7586 > Cloisters Square > Perth > WA 6850 > Australia > > Yours > > Matthew > > >