That law reads in part:
"Whoever... knowingly causes the transmission of a program,
information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct,
intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected
computer...shall be punished..."
Except that use of DNSBL's is generally authorized by the entity
administering the mail servers; moreover, it is increasingly clear
that the vast majority of email users do not regard the blocking of
spam as "damage".
See also 47 USC 230(c)(2):
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held
liable on account of -
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to
or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be
obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or
otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is
constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content
providers or others the technical means to restrict access to
material ...
---
As far as I'm concerned, spam is "otherwise objectionable".
And I believe that there is at least one congressional resolution
encouraging the private sector to work on spam control technologies..
- Bill