spamassassin-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From LuKreme <>
Subject Re: SpamAssassin is not a filter
Date Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:41:36 GMT
On 15-Oct-2009, at 13:21, Adam Katz wrote:
> LuKreme wrote:
>> On 15-Oct-2009, at 12:40, Adam Katz wrote:
>>> They've been very gracious to our community so far,
>> Since they stopped trying to sue everyone?
>> No wait, they didn't stop, they just lost their lawsuits.
>> Yeah, not really seeing that 5 year legal battle with SpamArrest as
>> gracious, myself. I suspect SpamArrest and there more than
>> $500,000 in legal bills would agree. Neither would other victims of
>> Hormel's sue-happy camp of lawyers (EarthLink, Postini, et al).
>> Gracious?
> If they were not gracious, they would have taken a firmer stance
> against any use of their SPAM brand pertaining to email.

Firmer than suing everyone in sight?

>> Hormel does not…

now that we have been bitch-slapped by the courts numerous times and  
lost our long and bloody trademark exclusivity battle against SpamArrest

>> …object to the term, but insists that it be spelled
>> in lower case so as to distinguish it

> If you own a company trying to *trademark* something with the word
> "Spam" in it (e.g. "SpamArrest"), that infringes upon their trademark.
> If you own a company with a product with the word "Spam" in it and
> you don't try to trademark it (e.g. SpamAssassin, SpamCop), they won't
> pursue (as it would be along fair use law rather than trademark law).


Hormel only stopped acting like total asshats after they lost all  
their court cases.

This is just revisionist. Hormel was frothing for several years there  
threatening anyone and everyone who referred to spam as spam.

I'll trade you 223 Wesley Crushers for your Captain Picard

View raw message