Ben Kosse writes:
> > No matter how dumb or not dumb mail.com's action was, they
> > had every legal
> > right to do what they did. It's their servers, their private
> > property, and
> > their bandwidth.
> Which, if you would note, are used by people who enter into a contractual
> arrangement by which they either pay mail.com (iname.com users with a POP
> account, for example) directly or access their e-mail via a web interface
> where they agree to view ads in exchange for, ahem, receiving e-mail. I
In that case, it's those individuals, and not their system administrator,
who have a cause of action to take against mail.com. They might have a
legitimate issue, however it is their issue only, and nobody else's.
> don't know what type of list the guy is running, but if, for example, it was
> a high importance list and the customers of said list lost money or similar
> because of mail.com's actions (or the list maintainer lost money because of
> mail.com's non-researched actions), then either the customers and/or himself
> have a very decent case.
The customers may in fact do, I never said that they don't. However,
unless they appointed the admin to be their official spokesman, and
explicitly delegated to him the authority to take action on their behalf,
it's none of the admin's business.
--
Sam
