o could this be used as a dos and then become extortion? has this actually happened, or is it just black heli?
It has happened, in a legal sense anyway. See Exactis V. MAPS. One of Exactis' claims was civil extortion. (Claim 4 on complaint). Exactis also claimed that MAPS could block 40% of their email, an that this was a denial of service and interference with communications in violation of Colorado's electronic communication privacy act. MAPS moved for dismissal but was denied. Exactis was granted a temporary restraining order (TRO). This is significant, given the case was settled. The standard for granting such an order is that the stated case, if the asserted facts are assumed true, must be able to win on the stated law. In other words, it has state enough facts to fulfill the claimed statutory requirements. To explain TROs, let me put it this way: Imagine you have a washing machine where you have to put the right coins in the right slots to get it work. For the TRO, if they have all the right coins (assuming they are real), for all the right slots in the law, (and they pay bond), they get it. The trial is where the judge checks to see that the coins are real. Getting a TRO is a strong indicator of the technical merits of their case. If the defendant can't show some of the asserted facts false, they will almost certainly lose.
o the ts&cs would seem to indicate that the donation is voluntary, and proportional to the spam generated. e.g., if you generated no spam, no donation. do i understand this correctly?
Its "voluntary" except that the subscribers are misled as to the purposes of the blacklist. The abuse of by blacklist is not something subscribers voluntarily agreed to. No subscribers agreed to have their non-spam mail intentionally blocked. Demanding payment for "generated spam", in return for de-listing is pretty plainly extortion. Here is the Colorado statute: (Caps from state page) (1) A PERSON COMMITS CRIMINAL EXTORTION IF: (a) THE PERSON, WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY AND WITH THE INTENT TO INDUCE ANOTHER PERSON AGAINST THAT OTHER PERSON'S WILL TO PERFORM AN ACT OR TO REFRAIN FROM PERFORMING A LAWFUL ACT, MAKES A SUBSTANTIAL THREAT TO CONFINE OR RESTRAIN, CAUSE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP OR BODILY INJURY TO, OR DAMAGE THE PROPERTY OR REPUTATION OF, THE THREATENED PERSON OR ANOTHER PERSON; AND (b) THE PERSON THREATENS TO CAUSE THE RESULTS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH (a) OF THIS SUBSECTION (1) BY: (I) PERFORMING OR CAUSING AN UNLAWFUL ACT TO BE PERFORMED; OR (II) INVOKING ACTION BY A THIRD PARTY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE STATE OR ANY OF ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, WHOSE INTERESTS ARE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED TO THE INTERESTS PURSUED BY THE PERSON MAKING THE THREAT. Seems like the victim is induced against their will to perform or refuse to perform a lawful act, Seems like a blacklist is a 'substantial threat to cause economic hardship'. Thats a) I'm not sure I understand b)I. I don't know if an "Unlawful act" here means something that is civilly unlawful, such as unlawful participation in a group boycott, or unlawful interference in a contract. Or if it requires criminally unlawful act, like threatening physical harm. Seems like the actions of the subscribers of the blacklist fullfill b)II because their interests are different from those of the blacklist. Subscribers interests in in blocking spam, not ham. Spam doesn't usually come from companies that would sue for extortion, like Exactis. CAN-SPAM establishes a definition for what can be considered spam. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000