On 27 Jan 2003 at 19:11, Loek Jehee wrote:
> Below you find an excellent mail from another of their victims that
> is and stays blocked. It is sent to me from one of my AOL subscribers.
Turns out that we're suffering from a similar problem [although we're not
blackklisted with AOL we are on one or another RBLs] --- Apparently some time
in the past QWest delegated our Class-C to someone who seems to have run afoul
of some spam-vigilante [at this point, there's no way even to figure out which
previous owner of the IP block caused the problem, nor whether there was any
merit to the now long-out-of-date action].
The person at docsplace.org was lucky: we still have had no luck [after three
weeks now] even getting a reply from the RBL folk, much less make any progress
on getting things fixed up. This has nothing to do with AOL's policies, of
course, but it is one of the problems with handling spamming by arbitrarily
blocking IP subnets [not to mention that that action is a violation of protocl
[cf RFC 2821/4.5.1]]
> AOL is keeping Email from their customers. This is against the law!
Could you elaborate? *what* law is it a violation of? The very best hope I
think you'd have is some kind of breach of contract action, but I suspect that
if you carefully read the ISP's ToS you'll find plenty of weasel words that'll
make that a tough row to hoe. For example, one particularly aggressive throw-
the-mail-amail-because-we-think-it's-spam ISP has this in their ToS:
[ISP] makes no warranties of any kind, whether expressed or implied,
for the service it is providing. [ISP] disclaims any warranty of
merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. [ISP] will not
be responsible for any damage you suffer from use of its service
including, but not limited to, loss of data, delays, misdeliveries or
service interruptions caused by [ISP]'s negligence or your own errors
or omissions.
So you can't say you weren't warned...:o)
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
