Subject: Re: Careful with those spamtools.....

From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:35:18 +0700

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:34:04 -0400 (EDT), Dean Anderson wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote:
>>> A few comments (interleaved) to clarify the record :)
>>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19:14:14 -0400 (EDT), Dean Anderson wrote:
>> >Indeed.  These open relay blacklist sites were always a highly
>> >questionable source for mail filtering.  Quite obviously, open relays have
>> >no relationship to spam, so using an open relay blacklist is going to
>> >block a lot of non-spam email.
>>
>> ==> That is the only way to get the attention of overworked (or
>>      incompetent) admins.
>
>No, it isn't. And it is an illegal method, because you (if you are an
>ISP), probably don't have permission to block non-spam mail. 

You may wish to take legal advice on this as you are incorrect in your
belief.   It is a matter of contract between ISP and customer.

> Blocking communications without permission is a (US) federal felony,

Perhaps if you are a common carrier, which ISPs are not

>It obviously isn't necessary, as you point out:
>
>> In one case I had to contact (personally)
>>      Ziggy Switkowski, the chairman of Telstra, to get his firm to
>>      crack down on misuse of his network. 

Contacting the chairman of the offending firm (in this case the
state telecom monopoly) is obviously not scalable.

Jeffrey Race  (with apologies for delay in reply while I was travelling)

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:39:29 -0400 (EDT)

> belief.   It is a matter of contract between ISP and customer.

I have taken legal advice on the issue, and have used it in conflicts
involving lawyers on both sides successfully. Your assertion is incorrect.
It is only partially a matter of contract. The contracts typically don't
permit ISPs to block non-spam email.  So, the blocking of non-spam email,
unauthorized by contract, is illegal.  Participation in illegal group
boycotts cannot be avoided by contract since such contracts are illegal
under the Sherman Anti-trust act.  Further, torts of non-performance by
the user, and interference with a contract by the entity blocked as also
applicable. There are other possible complaints.

The assertion by radicals that one who is not a party to a contract cannot
bring a complaint is incorrect.

> Perhaps if you are a common carrier, which ISPs are not

The ECPA is not limited to common carriers.  There are numerous legal
cases that illustrate this point.  This idea that only common carriers are
subject to the ECPA is misinformation promulgated by certain radical
antispammers, to entice unwary admins into breaking the law to participate
in an illegal boycott.  Frequently, the particular boycott desired has
nothing whatsoever to do with spam, but is often personally motivated
revenge by the anti-spammers aimed at companies the radicals perceive to
be threatening, or simply unsympathetic to their extreme methods.

		--Dean