Spamford's service was terminated. He won a suit which proved AGIS did not follow their termination agreement. Then instead of paying 1800/mo for T1 service, his spam partners bought dialup lines for 480/mo. I'd say AGIS was the stupid one. Anyway, there was no evidence that he was blocked by anyone who did not have permission to do so. There was no evidence that he was smurfed. There was no evidence that his network was intentionally damaged. However, that does not mean that these things didn't happen, or that they would be legal if they did. As I have explained, if you have permission, you are ok. It's been reported here that a US Attorney (federal prosecutor) has said if your service definition includes blocking for customers, then you have their permission. If not, you don't. Thats pretty simple. Furthermore, the ECPA was amended specifically to make it cover email. This is in the hearing records on the amendment, which passed. This is the intent of the US Congress, clearly stated. It is not "my interpretation". It needs no qualification whatsoever. You don't need to take my word for it. Call your US Attorney, and ask if blocking without permission from a party to the communication is OK under the ECPA. Ask if he thinks that any "unsolicited" communication qualifies as an abuse under the ECPA. He is the one that files criminal charges. A judge decides whether there is sufficient evidence that a law has been broken. You are then found guilty or innocent. I'm not sure whether anyone has been charged under this law, but there is always the first time. The intent of Congress is clear. But claiming that you can "do anything you please with your equipment" is complete BS. There isn't anything more I can say. --Dean At 05:29 PM 12/4/1998 -1000, James D. Wilson wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

dean,

You have made this argument time and time again but have yet to provide citations of court cases where this has been decided and upheld. There are multiple cases out there which validate the right of a provider to block mail services from whomever they want. Remember Spamford?

Saying something is so is one thing, providing cases where the legal system has made final decisions incl. after appeals is another.

Prove that your interpretation of the law has been placed before a judge/jury and been held up under appeal. Otherwise qualify your statements as your interpretation of the law and your speculation as to how it would really hold up in court.

- - James D. Wilson

- -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Dean Anderson Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 7:26 AM To: Scott Lampert; John Leong; sdeath@ackphft.matsu.alaska.edu Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users

...

I don't know about where you live but here in BellSouth land you can call the phone company and block outgoing 900 number calls from your

At 11:53 PM 12/3/1998 -0500, Scott Lampert wrote: line.

Correct: YOU can ask to have things blocked on YOUR line. The phone company (or ISP) can't do that without YOUR permission. But if (say a CLEC) offers phone services without any 900 services, they have your permission when you sign up.

Likewise, YOU can use the RBL to block YOUR mail, and your ISP can use the RBL if you give them permission. Which you do for example (according to US Attorney somewhere), if their service definition includes blocking.

The ethics of the RBL and its ability to coerce people and organizations arbitrarily notwithstanding, its existance is probably not illegal. However, that does not mean that it can't be used to illegally block mail by people that don't have permission to block.

The idea promulgated by some that a network operator can do whatever they feel like with "their equipment" is plainly wrong. There are laws which govern how that equipment can be used by its owners. The people who feel otherwise seem to be falling into the kook category, so I don't see any point in arguing further.

'Szechuan Death' brings up some good ethical and moral points about the RBL. ORBS is even more arbitrary and unethical. But I'm not sure this is of any operational importance.

Hasn't the operational value of this discussion been exhausted?

--Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean@av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.5 for non-commercial use <http://www.nai.com> Comment: All Spammers Are Thieves - Jail Them Now

iQA/AwUBNmiolDAufbtGOmgdEQIGZQCgmFSl62Zi5JwgnnlhJRBFA4FsO40AnjWt 80qSqSS8p177CxG+W/rDGBaT =ejWb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean@av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++