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

[Jon L. Miller]

Was the spammer sending e-mail through someone else's server? if not
then it could be seen as defamatory.

What the spammer has to look at, if someone has asked not to be sent
this type of e-mail and they continue, then they are not showing any
responsibility in their "business ethics" and therefore they
could/should be labeled a spammer.  This would be based on "our"
definition of a "spammer" as someone who deliberately floods the
Internet with unsolicited material.

I know I never asked for this type of mail.  What "spammers" of this
type have to look at is we the user and owners of e-mail servers are
being charged for downloaded material and this type of unsolicited mail
cost us money.  Who is going to pay for this? and why should I be
subjected to this mail. Granted all we can do is click delete for the
time being.

Rules of engagement needs to be addressed for unsolicited material.

jlm

On Thu, 2002-06-06 at 23:21, Peter J. Nicol wrote:
> 
> >  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.
> 
>