Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:18:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Dean Anderson To: Matthew Sullivan Cc: abuse@xo.com, hostmaster@uq.edu.au, David Shrimpton Subject: Re: Ref: Complaint regarding www.sorbs.net (209.220.100.158) On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, Matthew Sullivan wrote: > Mr Anderson, > > As I said, if you think you have a case, go for it, it's your time and > your money. You have the details of my legal representative you have a > contact address for me. > > If you continue cc'ing random people at UQ you will be barred from > sending mail to UQ. > > In fact I have cc'd this to David Shrimpton and am recomending that he > block all mail from yourself and av8.com for continuing the abuse even > to your last mail. > > Dean Anderson wrote: > > >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. > > > > > SORBS has a contract with UQ for connectivity. UQ are SORBS' ISP. Then you appear to be violating your terms of service by posting defamatory remarks. > >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. > > > No you are incorrect. I registered the domain SORBS.NET for the > software on the http://www.sorbs.net/ site. The subdomain > dnsbl.sorbs.net has been loaned indefinately and without charge to the > SORBS company. SORBS is not an ISP. SORBS is however a non-profit > company with no assets, no income and no debts, if you get your lawyers > to do their home work, you can easily find out it's details. Perhaps > you would like to join the other SORBS sponsors on the action as well, > there is a list on the sponsors page, bear in mind, that the page needs > updating as Sun Microsystems have recently donated use of all the new > machinary behind the SORBS firewall. Sounds like SORBS does have some assets after all. As, no doubt, do you. > >Also, I "have not confirmed that the OSF doesn't exist anymore". This is a > >further (quite obvious, I might add) false statement. > > > Well your definitions of merger must differ from that of mine, you see > when more than one company merges to form another, it is gernerally > known in my country that the original companies no longer exist. Only > when they are taken over (bought out) and the companies become 'wholly > owned subsidiaries' of a parent do they still exist, this is not the > same as a merger. Your misconceptions and errors do not lessen your liability. > >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. > > > > > > > If you wish to change the opinion of SORBS from suspicion of hijacking > the netblocks in question and therefore having the SORBS hostnames > removed from the database, you are not going the right way about it. > You will need to show verifiable proof that you did not hijack the > netblock. If you continue to refuse to disclose it, SORBS and myself > will remain of the opinion that you infact have no proof because the > block is stolen/hijacked. SORBS does not need to prove that you have > stolen/hijacked the netblock to create hostnames in its own domain, in > fact SORBS can list hostnames in it's own domain at it's pleasure, and > without reason if it feels like. I don't have any concern about your opinion. However, I can make you stop making false statements. > On a final note, you will find that stating suspicion of something is > considered an 'opinion' under Australian Law, and like American law, > people and companies have the right to state an opinion regardless as to > whether it is true or false. Really? In the US, and opinion is defined as a statement that cannot be proved either true or false. Unless I am mistaken (and of course, my counsel will be able to answer this), it is the same in Australia. Couching statements as opinion that are reasonably understood to imply facts are still factual statements, subject to liability. > Consider yourself on notice, further use of my email server is not > permitted, that includes the use of SORBS' email server, for this > frivolous banter. Whilst it has been entertaining it is now taking up > too much of my time. As you have been asked not to send further mails > of this nature, further emails will render youself libel for criminal > prosecution under the Computer Misuse laws of Australia. Also, as you > have been asked not to send further email, for the second time, sending > mail to either myself or other random parties at UQ will have you > considered as a sender of unsolicited email. Neither SORBS nor UQ make > definition that spam is anything but unsolicited email and therefore > your netblock will be libel for addition to the SORBS list for senders > of spam. (Which SORBS will state (statement not an opinion) is true - > "persons, companies or netblocks sending spam to an address of a SORBS > feeder server") > > Further correspondance should be made by postal mail to myself or in the > case of legal documents to my legal representative, as indicated in my > last email. If you wish to provide the verifiable proof that OSF > gave/sold you the netblocks in question you are welcome to forward such > proof, by email if possible, to myself using email at this address. > (This is an invitation and therefore such proof email will not be > considered unsolicited) > > Yours > > Matthew > >