From reading this list, it doesn't sound like RBL is being used as a tool to squelch the disenfranchised. I can't say I know Paul Vixie all that well, but I think he'd be the first to raise a red flag if RBL was being used as a tool to censor people.

In response to your other point, "Is there grounds for this case?" Consider provider P's upstream provider, UP. UP, if they are sensible, has a usage policy which includes abuse. It is definitely within the bounds of UP's course of action to discontinue service to P because P's customer's are violating UP's usage policy. Instead of discontinuing P's service completely, UP black-holes P's mail and shares this information with other providers who chose to black-hole the abusive e-mail users. So, it's P's responsibility to correct the situation. Paul only provides a mechanism, so you can't sue him. It's like the City of Chicago trying to sue the gun makers for aiding and abetting murder after the fact -- plainly guns don't kill people, people kill people. Take this analogy a step further: RBL black-holes spam, but people implement RBL to deal with people sending spam. -scooter

[In the message entitled "Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users" on Nov 18, 22:37, Chris Williams writes:]

...

Company S(pam) has a web site, hosted on the servers of web-presence-provider Company P(rovider). Company S uses the services of Company X to send out massive loads of SPAM, with referencing the web site and even e-mail addresses hosted by Company H. Now, if I'm hearing what's being said on this list correctly, Company H is being expected to pull the website they host for Company S (or else be blackholed), _even though no illegal or spam-generating activity is being generated on their network_. Am I understanding this correctly?!?

You are understanding this correct. Spam support services certainly falls under the charter of the RBL.

See http://maps.vix.com/rbl/candidacy.html#ByAssociation

-- Dave Rand dlr@bungi.com http://www.bungi.com