I am not proposing to involve any new technology laws into this lawsuit. I'm proposing to stick to laws that the lawyers and courts understand. A spam is an unsolicited advertisement. When you get an unsolicited advertisement, you have the right to ask the sender to take you off the bulk mail list (the fact that you pay for the delivery is just icing on the cake - even if THEY pay, you have the right to ask them to stop). I'm proposing for hundreds of organizations totalling thousands of mailing lists to collectively demand not to receive further ads on the mailing lists they operate, through a carefully crafted legal procedure that formally delegates this authority to a central clearinghouse. If the spammer persists in sending ads to your lists, you can sue him, unless the relevant laws happen to say that this does not work when the ad is carried using IP datagrams. The last time I was in the US, I heard on TV that a woman sued some used car joint that kept sending her ads for whatever the current special deal of a lifetime was. She asked them to stop several times, but they just went on. She got $2,500, which may not be much, but if you multiply by the number of lists (or even just organizations) it's serious money. Besides, I imagine that the spammers or their clients would be in a worse situation. The used car joint can at least plead negligence. After all, the woman had told them she wasn't interested in buying anything from them. There wasn't much of a reason, other than laziness and/or obstination, to keep sending her ads. A spammer on the other hand would be making a serious cut to his "audience" by obeying the clearinghouse's order. Complying means losing money, because in the advertising business clients generally pay according to the number of people who will see the message. It's not negligence when you forget to remove, say, 10,000 lists from your mailing list of 15,000; it's plain and simple refusal to comply. Eric