Yay Jeremy (was Re: [plug] Spam sender sues)

[Peter J. Nicol]

>  Simon Scott wrote:
>  >
>  > OK, can someone explain something to me?
>  >
>  > What possible bitch could T3 have? I mean legally, how could
>  they have a leg
>  > to stand on?
>
>  Their argument is extremely obscure at present.  Best I can make out,
>  they have two limbs to the argument:
>
>  (a) intentional interference with contractual relations (deliberately
>  causing T3 to breach its contracts with its customers); and
>
>  (b) secondary boycott (basically where two or more people act together
>  to prevent the supply of goods or services from one third party to
>  another).

There could also be a defamation issue.  No-one is obliged to route email
through their networks if they don't want to, but it could be argued that
sending some-ones name to a blacklist is denoting them (say) a 'spammer' ...
this could be found to be defamatory.