On Wed, 8 Nov 2006, Kyle Wheeler 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.
>
> Hmm. That would be rather surprising. There's enough collateral damage
> from using DNS-based blacklists (sorbs, spamcop, etc.) to make most
> Fortune 500 companies (among others) into criminals.
Actually, most fortune 500 companies don't use abusive blacklists.
SORBS has blocked all email from Av8 Internet since 2003, falsely
claiming that our IP address space is hijacked. I deal with about 1
company per month using SORBS. They don't use SORBS very long, and
haven't used it long.
> Standord Wallace v Compuserve
Wallace was sending spam. That was undisputed. You seem to be confusing
the sending of spam with the blocking of non-spam email.
ISPs usually have permission to block spam. By contrast, they usually
_don't_ have permission to block non-spam. There is a distinction.
> EmarketersAmerica v SPEWS.org et al
This case was dropped by Emarketers when SPEWS lawyer basically
threatened abuse of process.
Look at the recent spamhaus case:
http://news.com.com/Spam+fighter+hit+with+11+million+judgment/2100-7350_3-6116009.html
$11 million judgement against spamhaus. E360insight is now going after
the spamhaus domain name. BTW, if you win a defamation suit in the US,
you will most certainly win in the UK. In the US, you have to prove the
statement false. In the UK, spamhaus has to prove their claims true.
> http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1102)
> lawsuits, I think the legality of blacklist spam blocking (even with
> its false-positives) is well-established.
Yes, _spam_ blocking (and abuse blocking) is legal. But non-spam
blocking is illegal. There is a distinction which blacklist abusers try
to ignore.
> > BTW, if they are using SPF to prevent email outsourcing or to link
> > IP access services with email services for domains they host, that
> > would also probably be an additional anti-trust violation, distinct
> > from the participation in an unlawful group boycott, as well as
> > torts of interference with contract, unfair competition, etc.
>
> I have no idea *why* they're doing it;
Call and ask. Tell them they are blocking non-spam email from you
(assuming your email isn't spam). The conscientious admins will fix this
straight away; the abusers will try to ignore your phone calls. Rarely,
they will get rude, but its happened. Just smile in that case, and talk
to their manager or their lawyer.
> I rather assumed it was for anti-spam purposes. In any case, the idea
> is that the sending domain published the SPF record for the express
> purpose that recipients could use it to make decisions about accepting
> or rejecting email. Given that any blocking is done, ostensibly, at
> the behest of the sender,
Then just contact the sending domain, and ask them to either remove the
record, or add your servers. If indeed they've put in the record
themselves, they should be able to fix the problem, handily. But I'm
guessing that they didn't ask for this, and if they can't change it
without paying more, then....
> I don't think John Gilmore's argument about DNSBLs violating antitrust
> law (which, to my knowledge, has never been confirmed by any court in
> the world) applies.
It has been confirmed: Exactis V. MAPS. The court threw out the 1st admt
defense, and granted the TRO. Getting a TRO requires a valid legal
argument.
--Dean
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
|