-----Original Message-----
From: Adam D . McKenna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 2:06 AM
To: Cris Daniluk
Cc: Sam; Qmail (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Lobby mail.com
>I can understand customers suing for not having their mail delivered.
>However, I can't see where you make the mental leap to the sender being
able
>to sue. If you are really serious about these claims, then please cite
>resources and court decisions that support them.
There are no current court cases. There is, however, strong legal basis. I
sell content to a customer which I deliver via email. You cut my route to my
customer who has an email account with you. That prevents us from fulfilling
our end of the deal between us and our customer. They paid us money, we
didn't deliver. If you will all remember, Network Solutions' lawyers were in
a similar situation when they were threatened with a blacklist for their
high volume of spam. They made this very same argument. That never saw a
court room, but then again they aren't blacklisted are they?
>The real question is, "are you a lawyer?" If you're not, then you really
>have no business speaking about the law in any forum.
Are you? Is Sam? Are any of us? No. My point is that. I do have legal
background in this subject area though, as it is intimately involved with my
job.
>By the way, I noticed that you responded to Sam's message, but you failed
to
>respond to Jim Lippard's posts which had a much more specific objection to
>your viewpoint, with a relevant quoted source. Is there a reason for this?
Mr. Lippards points are completely irrelevant. He's citing a bill that
doesn't exist. Moreover, if it would suit the fancy of those of you who are
legal evangalists, I can bring in a list of court cases in which actual
statutes were cited, where entire sections of user agreements like what
we're discussing were thrown out as unreasonable. I don't have any desire to
sift through legal cases to prove a point, so I'd prefer you look it up
yourself if you don't believe me.
>--Adam
This could (and I think has) evolved into a needless flamewar. Whether you
think that it is illegal or not, it is STILL a reasonable substantiation to
fight in court and it would be a long and expensive battle for both parties
and no, Sam, legal fees would not be awarded. If you'll do your homework,
legal fees are rarely awarded except in exceptionally erroneous claims. My
question is this: Why would you want to go through all this for filtering
out one more possible spam sender? And as far as I'm concerned, mail.com or
whomever it may be could win a court case by a landslide, but you won't win
any customers that way.
