On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, William Herrin wrote:
Respectfully, you're mistaken. Look up "tortious interference."
I'm familiar with it.
But I am also familar with many cases were spammers have sued network
operators claiming that they're falsely defamed, so the operator has to
deliver their mail. They have without exception lost. If you can find
actual cases where a court forced an operator to deliver a third party's
traffic I would like to hear about it.*
43 USC 230(c)(A) provides extremely broad protection for "good faith"
blocking, which means that a complaint would have to show that the
blocking was malicious rather than merited or accidental. In this case it
seems probably accidental, but for all I know there might have been bad
traffic to merit a block.
Here's one of the cases where a spammer lost:
https://jl.ly/Email/holomaxx.html
https://jl.ly/Email/holo4.html
And here's one where the judge rejected tortious interference:
https://jl.ly/Email/spamarrest.html
My results going through the support front-door at large companies for
oddball problems have been less than stellar. Has your experience
truly been different?
No, it's terrible, and Spectrum is particularly bad. I am now in month
three of trying to get them to route a /24 to my host that belongs to one
of my users, and their responses can be summarized as very complex
exegeses of "duh?"
But bogus lawyer letters will just make things worse.
R's,
John
* - let's stay away for now from the Texas and Florida social network
common carrier laws which are a whole other can of s*