RE: Lawsuit threat against RBL users

Spamford's service was terminated. He won a suit which proved AGIS did not
follow their termination agreement. Then instead of paying 1800/mo for T1
service, his spam partners bought dialup lines for 480/mo. I'd say AGIS
was the stupid one. Anyway, there was no evidence that he was blocked by
anyone who did not have permission to do so. There was no evidence that he
was smurfed. There was no evidence that his network was intentionally
damaged. However, that does not mean that these things didn't happen, or
that they would be legal if they did.

As I have explained, if you have permission, you are ok. It's been reported
here that a US Attorney (federal prosecutor) has said if your service
definition includes blocking for customers, then you have their permission.
If not, you don't. Thats pretty simple.

Furthermore, the ECPA was amended specifically to make it cover email.
This is in the hearing records on the amendment, which passed. This is the
intent of the US Congress, clearly stated. It is not "my interpretation".
It needs no qualification whatsoever.

You don't need to take my word for it. Call your US Attorney, and ask if
blocking without permission from a party to the communication is OK under
the ECPA. Ask if he thinks that any "unsolicited" communication qualifies
as an abuse under the ECPA. He is the one that files criminal charges.

A judge decides whether there is sufficient evidence that a law has been
broken. You are then found guilty or innocent. I'm not sure whether
anyone has been charged under this law, but there is always the first time.
The intent of Congress is clear.

But claiming that you can "do anything you please with your equipment" is
complete BS. There isn't anything more I can say.