On 05/05/04 13:24 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Let us say I block mail from certain network blocks, depending ov
criteria of my choosing.
This step is definitely not illegal.
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.
Uh? How different is it if I publish a list of IP addresses from which I
do not accept email?
I run more than one server, using DNS is a convinient way for me to
ensure that all these see the same readonly data.
The fact you publish means that you expect the information to
be read and acted on.
Read, possibly. Acted on, not in my expectations. I only claim the right
to speech. I do not claim the right to make anyone else hear my speech,
or to act on it.
<snip>
I don't think you can seriously claim that your comparison to SPEWS is
anything other than partisan.
Not really. I do not trust Verisign. I trust SPEWS *until* such time as
they betray my trust.
If blacklists are going to demand accountability they must accept
accountability - from all parties they affect, not just the
ones they
choose.
Given that the service is optional and free, I doubt that
accountability to anyone else is even a question.
If you affect someone the courts may decide to hold you accountable
to them.
Is a DNSBL affecting anyone? Not in any way that I see it.
I do not believe that it should be legal for a public service ISP to
use any anonymous blacklist service to filter customer's mail.
Is there a contract guarantee that email will be delivered?
There is an expctation. 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.
Actually, unless specified otherwise, I would say it is for the MX onwer
to do so.
Devdas Bhagat
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg