AOL holes again.

Wed Mar 21 01:58:45 UTC 2001

On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 07:23:18PM -0600, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> 
> the service delivery, and given how much load spam places on ISPs
> rejecting it is permissible as protecting the property of the service
> provider.

Since I get less spam in a normal day than I do regular mail, and I get
a lot more spam (and a lot more regular mail) than the average person,
I wouldn't want to try to fight from that position in court.

"But your honor, 5% of his email was spam, we had to kill that in order 
to provide the service."

"But you were killing all his legitimate mail traffic from the 2nd-largest
ISP in the country."

"We had to, he got three spams from them last week."

Rings kinda hollow.

It gets worse if you killed what you thought was spam, and it was
SOLICITED commercial email he signed up for.  I get quite a bit of that.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20010320/7a1509c3/attachment.sig>