4 ms·

Do you know what the lawyers said beyond "I'm a lawyer and would like you to edit the blacklist" ? Are these companies doing something illegal by blacklisting y

by bo1024 5y ago

Do you know what the lawyers said beyond "I'm a lawyer and would like you to edit the blacklist" ? Are these companies doing something illegal by blacklisting you unfairly, or do you have grounds for some sort of civil suit (if so, what grounds)?

tyingq 5y ago
I would think "Tortious interference" is the most likely legal basis to complain about it. "Tortious interference is a common law tort allowing a claim for damages against a defendant who wrongfully interferes with the plaintiff's contractual or business relationships"
- phishersfritz 5y ago
  Safe your 500 bucks per hour. A lawyer will not do anything. A blacklist is not directly interfering with your business. They just provide a list that contains IPs, your IP, and say we have seen spam traffic from it in the last x hours. The mail receiver, who trusts and uses the list might be interfering, but it is his right to pick and choose who he is accepting email from. Same right you have to pick and choose who you let into your bar, apartment, club, house, ... what so ever.
  - jgerrish 5y ago
    Safe your 500 bucks per hour. A lawyer will not do anything Sigh, I think I understand this statement. A warning to patent holders or a call to let it all burn down. A clever appeal to class divisions. I can't work through all the implications. But I do know the "enemy" of my "enemy" is not necessarily my "friend". I've seen the nightmare of the next Internet. Whether it's micropayments for digital stamps, or slowly refilling quotas, or hard hierarchical controls, it's more power to central authority. I know I'll never win this argument. The Internet will keep fracturing and normal citizens will get more frustrated. There will be a change. But just like the hatred of social media, lurking underneath it is an insatiable thirst for power.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  IANAL. But you don't have a contract with the receiver for the receiver to receive your mail. You send mail from an IP on a subnet you control to AT&T. ATT has previously received spam from this subnet (maybe before you acquired the subnet), and they've marked it in a spam list. You're not _paying_ ATT to deliver your mail; that's when you can invoke a lawyer and say that ATT is not doing what you're paying them to do. ATT is under no obligation to route your incoming mail to its destination without any form of payment. Their services are offered to their customers, not to you, the sender. I'm not saying this situation is _good_. It results in massive consolidation and gatekeeping by Tier 1s for mail. The problem is that it's much easier to send mail over SMTP than receive it, so the cost is on the receiver to filter mail. That means the receiver has every incentive to be overly defensive. I think a hashcash/PoW mechanism or a cryptocurrency deposit mechanism could be a great way to fight some of these problems. Pay a crypto deposit and receive a tunnel to send mail through. If you violate any spam policies, your deposit is lost and the tunnel is closed. Or charge cryptocurrency (quadratically?) per mail sent on this tunnel.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    But AT&T is being paid or has an agreement to operate the recipients' mailboxes. TOS are gonna TOS, but if the small print reserves the right to block spam, or traffic from spammers, then proof of not being a spammer, or at least proof of a legitimate use, might create an obligation ATT has to its users to not block those addresses, even if there's no obligation to the 3rd party making the request. The knowledge affects ATT's obligations to others, not the requestor. Idk where that gets you in a practical sense, but its at least a line of reasoning that's beyond "ATT can block whatever it wants".
  - tyingq 5y ago
    All reasons why you might lose a lawsuit. However, a lawsuit, or even a cease and desist letter is still a nuisance for whoever you sue. Enough that their legal department might ask their ops department to stop blocking the emails. Since that's probably the cheapest route to make you go away.
  - rtpg 5y ago
    You and the receiver are in a business relationship. AT&T, through its “arbitrary” blocklist, is getting in the way. Without further justifications (and “oh it’s the algorithm” is not enough!) they are interfering with your business relationship. That’s what tortuous interference is, getting in the way of third parties doing business. You could argue about technical details around the server but a judge will properly understand the social constructs at play.

by bo1024 5y ago

tyingq 5y ago

I would think "Tortious interference" is the most likely legal basis to complain about it. "Tortious interference is a common law tort allowing a claim for damages against a defendant who wrongfully interferes with the plaintiff's contractual or business relationships"

phishersfritz 5y ago
Safe your 500 bucks per hour. A lawyer will not do anything. A blacklist is not directly interfering with your business. They just provide a list that contains IPs, your IP, and say we have seen spam traffic from it in the last x hours. The mail receiver, who trusts and uses the list might be interfering, but it is his right to pick and choose who he is accepting email from. Same right you have to pick and choose who you let into your bar, apartment, club, house, ... what so ever.
- jgerrish 5y ago
  Safe your 500 bucks per hour. A lawyer will not do anything Sigh, I think I understand this statement. A warning to patent holders or a call to let it all burn down. A clever appeal to class divisions. I can't work through all the implications. But I do know the "enemy" of my "enemy" is not necessarily my "friend". I've seen the nightmare of the next Internet. Whether it's micropayments for digital stamps, or slowly refilling quotas, or hard hierarchical controls, it's more power to central authority. I know I'll never win this argument. The Internet will keep fracturing and normal citizens will get more frustrated. There will be a change. But just like the hatred of social media, lurking underneath it is an insatiable thirst for power.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Karrot_Kream 5y ago
IANAL. But you don't have a contract with the receiver for the receiver to receive your mail. You send mail from an IP on a subnet you control to AT&T. ATT has previously received spam from this subnet (maybe before you acquired the subnet), and they've marked it in a spam list. You're not _paying_ ATT to deliver your mail; that's when you can invoke a lawyer and say that ATT is not doing what you're paying them to do. ATT is under no obligation to route your incoming mail to its destination without any form of payment. Their services are offered to their customers, not to you, the sender. I'm not saying this situation is _good_. It results in massive consolidation and gatekeeping by Tier 1s for mail. The problem is that it's much easier to send mail over SMTP than receive it, so the cost is on the receiver to filter mail. That means the receiver has every incentive to be overly defensive. I think a hashcash/PoW mechanism or a cryptocurrency deposit mechanism could be a great way to fight some of these problems. Pay a crypto deposit and receive a tunnel to send mail through. If you violate any spam policies, your deposit is lost and the tunnel is closed. Or charge cryptocurrency (quadratically?) per mail sent on this tunnel.
- beerandt 5y ago
  But AT&T is being paid or has an agreement to operate the recipients' mailboxes. TOS are gonna TOS, but if the small print reserves the right to block spam, or traffic from spammers, then proof of not being a spammer, or at least proof of a legitimate use, might create an obligation ATT has to its users to not block those addresses, even if there's no obligation to the 3rd party making the request. The knowledge affects ATT's obligations to others, not the requestor. Idk where that gets you in a practical sense, but its at least a line of reasoning that's beyond "ATT can block whatever it wants".
- tyingq 5y ago
  All reasons why you might lose a lawsuit. However, a lawsuit, or even a cease and desist letter is still a nuisance for whoever you sue. Enough that their legal department might ask their ops department to stop blocking the emails. Since that's probably the cheapest route to make you go away.
- rtpg 5y ago
  You and the receiver are in a business relationship. AT&T, through its “arbitrary” blocklist, is getting in the way. Without further justifications (and “oh it’s the algorithm” is not enough!) they are interfering with your business relationship. That’s what tortuous interference is, getting in the way of third parties doing business. You could argue about technical details around the server but a judge will properly understand the social constructs at play.