>Dean, you keep changing your tune.
So, does this mean you agree that *some* spamblocking is illegal? (I
suspect not, but surprise me.)
*Illegal*, as in criminal? No, I don't agree with you on that.
Possibly civilly actionable? Sure, depending on what you promised someone
in a service agreement it might very well be. Then again, that's true of
just about anything if you draw service agreements in a foolish way.
My credibility has no relevance to the truth of whether or not
2511 can apply to network providers. Its federal law. Network providers and
employees ought to be roughly aware of the laws which apply to them. And
certainly not misled.
You have presented no such evidence (hint: your claiming that it does is
not evidence). A cite from a case in which a decision was rendered would
be "evidence". But you freely admit no such cite exists.
>How would THAT come about, pray tell? Do you know how modern SMTP based
>email actually *works*?
Yes, but apparently you don't. This isn't the only way its handled. Some
people "transparently" intercept SMTP.
6 months ago I pointed out UUCP.
UUCP still maintains a customer relationship, and ergo, it is once again
irrelavent. If I sell you a UUCP connection, you and I now have an
agreement. If you sell someone ELSE a connection off your machine, the
problem is yours, not mine, if you don't disclose the terms and conditions
of OUR transport of your (and your customers) material.
And there is also route filtering via BGP RBL. If they aren't a party to
the communication, then its illegal. (like I said before)
And again, its bullshit. The BGP RBL blocks all traffic from abusive sites.
The people affected are the site's customer base, all of which have a
customer relationship. If there is a third party behind one of those
customers, that problem is *the customers*, not the BGP RBL subscriber.
I'm really disappointed that people keep claiming that 2511 can't possibly
apply to a network provider, in spite of the now overwhelming proof to the
There is no such proof that in the instant case under discussion it would
apply, your pontification to the contrary notwithstanding. I'm sure we
could contrive some situation where it COULD apply, but in the context of
blocking abusive sites (whether by smurf or by spam) it simply is not a
I just can't believe there are still people who argue this.
You have no factual basis.
I've brought it to your attention.
Do you want to spam someone (or have you in the past done so) Dean?