Re: Race's BCP/blacklist Proposal (was Re: Principles of Spam-abatement)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:

> The problem with this kind of proposal is that it punishes too many of 
> the wrong people.   I myself was the victim of a blacklist for most of 
> last year; my ISP was blacklisted by another ISP, and they spent 6 
> months arguing about it, during which time all my email to users of the 
> other ISP was blocked (although they kept helpfully telling me that I 
> could always switch to using *them* as my ISP).

For them to offer competing service while blocking your ISP is probably an
unfair business practice.  This is probably something that you should
document and forward to your ISP's legal department. There are a number of
torts for them to consider.  Blocking email without permission is a
violation of state and federal law as well. State law varies, though it is
usually much broader.  Federal law is codified in the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2501 et al, and 18 USC 2701 et al.

Most AUP's and service contracts give the ISP the _limited_ permission to
block spam. However, blocking things other than spam is not permitted, and
thus not lawful. You should have contacted your lawyer.  Indeed, you
should still contact your lawyer, as federal law provides you with a civil
action to recover a minimum $1000 per user blocked, plus your attorney's
fees.  Both the users affected and your ISP can initiate a civil action on
these violations.

		--Dean




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]