Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers

[Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org]

And such things would be actionable in court. Wrongly putting someone's 
name on www.childmolesters.com not only would constitute defamation of 
character (asserting that someone performs criminal acts, actionable in 
California ) but may also allow punitive damages (fraud, oppression, or 
malice).




Tom <tom@lemuria.org>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
10/19/01 12:29 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers


On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 12:28:14AM -0700, carey wrote:
> Your analogy fails for a key reason:
> 
> The RBL list does allow you to have the address removed once you've
> proven  you're no longer an open - mail relay.  I've had my local ISP
> have this problem a few times.  Also, unlike what theEFF article says,
> at least in my case, there was identification that the message was
> blocked by the recipient ISP, notably that the recipient blocked my
> mail due to the fact that my ISP was an open-relay.
> 
> The molestor case exists (thank you meghan's law) and unlike RBL
> doesn't allow for an individual to be removed.

imagine it did. let's register www.childmolesters.com and put up a list
there. you'd *still* be pissed off to find your name there and even if
there's a "send mail _here_ to be removed from this list" link, there
may still be considerable harm done to you.

the correct way (I don't think RBL works that way, but if you know
better, please correct me) would be to send a warning/notice to the
affected people first, give them time enough to fix the problem, and if
they don't, *then* put them on the list.