On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>
> On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, John Bolding wrote:
>
> > see anything about "anti-competition laws".
>
> Then you didn't look very hard. Check out
> http://maps.vix.com/rbl/rationale.html#Legality
> where the authors fully realize,
>
> "...we worry every day about the Sherman Antitrust Act."
>
> "Are our actions interpretable as conspiracy in restraint of trade? So
> far, no. We've been threatened with legal action on about a dozen
> occasions, and our legal advisors have said IT WILL DEPEND ON THE
> JUDGE YOU GET." (emphasis theirs)
>
How do judges re-act to credit check services ? The situation has a
lot in common.
> > >I'm trying to consider the effect on blameless victims, such as the
> > >non-spamming customers of spam-friendly sites. And let's not blind
> > >ourselves out of righteous indignation, RBL *will* produce some innocent
> > >casualties.
> >
> > Sure. And they can complain to their provider.
>
This does sound similar to a credit check. It is known that someone
can be "black listed" simply beacuse the previous resident of their
address had a bad credit record. This happens even more often with
those who have a common surname ! it can take a while for someone to
find out the reason why they are being refused credit is bsaed on
someone elses bad debt record. Correcting this cna also be very
difficult. The question is how will JUDGES deal with this with regaurd
to denial of service on the internet.
> This is exactly the kind of attitude that *will* cause a backlash. Most
> users will have no idea where in the chain the problem is occurring. Their
> ISP may (and probably will) insist that the problem is at your end,
> because you are artificially blocking mail that fully meets the SMTP spec.
>
> > >I also believe that there is a grey area between spam and solicited
> > >commercial email solicitations, with which binary solutions such as RBL
> > >are incapable of coping. It is in these grey areas where the RBL people
> > >are on their shakiest legal footings.
>
> > Again with the "legal" aspect. Use of the RBL is __optional__.
>
> Do you as an admin get the explicit consent of every user, every mailbox
> owner on your system/network, before implementing RBL? If not, it's hardly
> voluntary for them, is it?
All depends on the terms of the service.
>
> > Plus, I do not want ANY unsolicted email. Period.
>
>
> Scenario: You subscribe to my magazine. At the bottom of the subscription
> form is a box that you check if you do not want your name used on any
> subsequent mailings that I, the publisher may want to send you or allow
> others to do.
>
The law may have changed for some here. Many magazines now ask you to
tick the box if your wish to receive it. I don't know if this has
occoured because of market presurre or changes in the law but it is
certainly a better approach. If an email based marketing group
use such a system of requested advertising then RBL should not block
them until it is proven they have failed to update their mailling
lists when requested to by its recipients. Similarly recipeients need
to be worned of any organisations that missuses their address and pass
it on to other as an address that has requested marketing email. Such
information will also be needed by those marketing groups that apply
for such lists.
--Sean
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
