Hmm. Ehlke...sounds familiar. So familiar, I think you already know the
answer to your question. This is a response to a known troll, so hit
delete now, unless you like history.
Exactis V. MAPS.
Exactis sued for anti-trust violation, just as I predicted would happen
about 10+ years ago. I made that assertion from information based on
queries I made around 1990 to the LPF attorneys regarding the operation
of boycotts. The script-kiddie trolls have long disputed this---of
course, with no basis for their claims. They assert there is a first
amendment right to operate a blacklist. There isn't. They assert
sometimes that there are no laws without court cases (e.g. the federal
register reference below). That isn't true either, but it hasn't stopped
them. Of course, they lie about lots things--Just look up 130.105/16 in
SORBS.
But MAPS countered the suit with a First Amendment assertion, just as
trolls asserted who disputed my reports. The constitutional legal
argument against anti-trust that was tossed about a century back.
Indeed, the MAPS lawyer was chastisted for this frivolous defense, and
the Judge recessed. MAPS settled during recess, giving Exactis
everything it demanded. This suit should never have reached court. The
court papers are interesting, though. A good read is the memoranda in
support of the TRO by Exactis. This is at
http://www.dotcomeon.com/exactis1.html. It gives a good look at the
MAPS true nature. Compare what you read in the Memo with page 254 of
Brian McWilliams book "Spam Kings", where MAPS employees are working for
_spammers_, "washing" their lists from spam-trap addresses. Then
compare with additional information on http://www.iadl.org.
I'm surprised you didn't dispute the ECPA assertions, too. Or has U.S.
V. Councilman finally convinced you that I was right about that, too?
It is always interesting how you tend to never admit your past mistakes.
--Dean
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Pete Ehlke wrote:
> On Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 15:16:42 -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
> >
> >Blocking non-spam email is a violation of federal anti-trust law
> >(participation in unlawful group boycott) and also state and federal
> >electronic privacy laws (no authorization to block non-spam email).
> >Some letters to Verizon may be necessary.
> >
> ( Just can't resist tossing a cookie to the troll... )
>
> And your citations in the Federal Reporter for the decisions that support
> these contentions are exactly what?
>
>
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
|