[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Sorbs

On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 09:47:28AM -0700, Robin Felix wrote:
> The better question is whether the blacklister has civil liability to 
> anyone in the email chain: mail user, mail server, intermediate carrier, 
> mail recipient, or blaclistee, such that they could successfully win a 
> lawsuit against the blacklister and collect damages against them.  So 
> far, that's a "no."  To date, the legal consensus is that no mail server 
> is forced to use a blacklist.  It's a voluntary action by those who run 
> mail hosts, and while they _may_ have a duty to their mail users to 
> provide reliable service, they have no duty to folks listed on the 
> blacklist.  The blacklist, by its existence alone, causes no harm.

The situation is more complex than this, unfortunately.  If even one
organization subscribes to a blacklist, then there exists an argument
that an ISP, in general, can provide better email service by acquiescing
to the demands of the blacklister.  It is a network effect, plain and
simple.  Does the ISP in this case really have a choice about whether to
pay the blacklister?  I'd say no.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature