Cris Daniluk writes:
> This may sound rude, but it's not intended to be--what country do you live
> in? I think you're either under a different set of laws, or have a
> fundamental misunderstanding of them.
My understanding of laws comes from established precedents - AOL versus
Cyberpromo, and Prodigy versus Cyberpromo, which states that system
administrators have a fundamental right to block any source of mail that
they see fit. Even though AOL does not have explicit clauses in their
TOS/AUP giving them the right to block mail, the judge has ruled that they
have an implied right to do so, based upon the fact that this is private
property, and existing principles applicable to private property are in
force.
> Your claims are very inaccurate. VERY
> inaccurate. The only reason I bring this to the list is that there may be
> other people in the same situation as mail.com out there and I think they
> may be reading everything that comes through here as fact. It is illegal for
> them to block out legitimate email from customers when they agree to provide
> the mail to customers.
No, it's not illegal for them to do anything just because you think it's
illegal. It is only illegal if it violates an existing law, which is what
"illegal" means. Until you came come up with a statute which prohibits
what mail.com did, you're just engaging in wishful thinking.
You have also completely ignored my pointer to mail.com's Terms Of
Service/Acceptable Usage Policy which clearly gives mail.com to arbitrarily
block incoming mail. Your blather about them agreeing to this and that is
just that, blather, since they did not agree to anything you think that
they agreed to, and, in fact, they agreed to just the opposite.
> They can make you sign contracts that say this is not
> so, but those contracts can have their legality tried in court. All ISPs and
Courts will not void existing contracts just because you think they should.
The only way contracts can be voided would be if they violate an existing
law.
You're welcome to cite a statute that prohibits private property owners
from configuring their equipment in whatever way they see fit.
[ more gruborisms deleted ]
--
Sam
