"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> wrote:
I choose to share this information with the world via a DNS based
mechanism. Not illegal.
If you do so for the purpose of interferring with a contract or
legitimate commerce you just crossed the line here.
It can't possibly be my _purpose_ to interfere with a contract I don't
even know exists.
Nor would I be attempting to "interfere with legitimate commerce" (who
gets to define "legitimate" anyway?) Only the mx-server owner has the
ability to choose whether to accept or reject email.
The fact you publish means that you expect the information to
be read and acted on.
Even I don't think there's anybody actually stupid enough to act on my
(still hypothetical) noprimes blacklist. I intend to publish it just
because I feel like publishing it, to prove the point that I can
publish it.
Lets see, that was one incident out of about 400,000 certs issued
each year.
How many domains have been hijacked because your company screwed up?
What happened to the domain after the screwup was revealed?
It was Verisign who paid lots of lawyers to beat up small companies
with a contract that says "We're not responsible if we screw up."
If you affect someone the courts may decide to hold you accountable
to them.
What puts Verisign above the law, then?
Is there a contract guarantee that email will be delivered?
There is an expctation.
When somebody bought running.com, he had an _expectation_ that it
would be registered to him. Verisign screwed up. How much did it pay
to compensate him for violating his expectation?
I suspect that it is currently legal to use an anonymous blacklist,
but I don't think it should be legal for anyone other than the
mailbox owner to do so.
Then you should move to a country that doesn't have the US
Constitution's freedom to contract.
Seth
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg