John C Klensin wrote: > As a thought experiment, if Nortel or Comcast are developing > these lists and like them, are they willing to assume liability? One would _assume_ you mean "assume liability if we lost a lawsuit", rather than fork out money to anybody who sticks their hand out. Well, of course we do. We wouldn't be doing it if we didn't - we can't wave a magic wand and escape the law. We have MUCH bigger worries than legal liability like you're talking about here. Losing an important sale because of a filter mistake is a far more likely risk than getting sued. So, no lost legitimate email is the absolute overriding priority. Or, are you thinking that a whole new set of law needs to be created to cover the source IP-based version of filtering, and holds DNSBL operators to a higher standard than anyone else? Why? There have been many legal actions already. A few losses, but mostly wins. Note also: e360 vs Comcast. e360 sues Comcast for source-IP blocking them. Case thrown out on summary judgement. Comcast has absolute right to do it explicitly enshrined in the DMCA "hold harmless for good faith blocking of objectionable email" clause. This is probably extensible to the suppliers that ISPs use to do that blocking. Hence, DNSBLs are also immune as long as the plaintiff can't prove bad faith. That case is not entirely over yet, but the final result isn't going to be any different. Comcast's counter to the initial complaint is amazing reading. > If not, what does that say about the model? Legal theory around DNSBLs has already been partially established in case law. Your questions have already had their answers demonstrated in a way that only enhances the model. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf