At 02:13 PM 12/21/1998 -0500, Steven J. Sobol wrote:

The domain was flowers.com, the ISP was Zilker Internet Park in Texas, and the judge found for the plaintiff.

Yeah, right. The "judge" was a county magistrate who found the (california) spammer guilty of "creating a nuiscance" in that county in Texas. (If the spammer had bothered, they would have likely demonstrated that a Texas County Magistrate has no jurisdiction in California) The spammer didn't show, and Zilker won by default. In legal terms, this means the case cannot be used as "case law" or as a precedent in other cases. In laymans terms, it means that the case has no legal usefulness. It didn't prove anything, and I don't think even now, a couple years later, that Zilker ever collected anything, or ever will. If a spammer can be sued for relaying, this particular case does not demonstrate how to do it. Nor should it be used as an example where a spammer was sued for money and lost. This does not mean there is no recourse against relaying. Just that this particular approach isn't it. This was a BS example a year and a half ago, when I pointed out its flaws to you. Yet you keep using it even though you know its BS. The "Just keep spewing" strategy seems to place limits your credibility. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean@av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++