Click the comments link on any story to see comments or add your own.
Subscribe to this blog
19 Dec 2010
The Holomaxx case grinds on to its inevitable conclusion, as Microsoft files a motion to dismiss all claims, and a crushing brief explaining why all of Holomaxx's claims are unsupported by facts, specifically contrary to law, internally contradictory, and in a few cases, just stupid. (Those are my words, not theirs, but what else can you call a complaint that Microsoft wasn't authorized to access their own mail servers?)
They make reference to many familiar cases, particularly E360 vs. Comcast, which had very similar facts, and which they cite in the first paragraph:
As a federal judge recently described a similar e-mail marketing service, "[s]ome, perhaps even a majority in this country, would call it a spammer."
I won't go through the brief in detail, but if you're looking for a comprehensive 33 page description of why spam filtering is absolutely, definitely, unarguably, without question, 100% legal, here it is.
15 Dec 2010
In early November, a hitherto obscure company called Holomaxx filed two lawsuits against Yahoo and Microsoft/Hotmail, complaining that they weren't delivering mail from Holomaxx, and against Return Path and Cisco/Ironport, claiming that they were were falsely defaming Holomaxx as a spammer.
As I said at the time, regardless of whether Holomaxx is sending spam, this case is devoid of merit for a variety of reasons. Earlier this week, Holomaxx retreated a little, dismissing the charges against Return Path and Ironport. The court filings are uninformative, one sentence dismissing each defendant without predjudice, which means that they could (in theory at least) sue them again later.
Ken Magill noted this first, with a comment from Return Path just saying that they're pleased to be out of the case.
Microsoft is supposed to respond on Friday, so assuming they do I'll see if they say anything interesting.
03 Dec 2010
01 Dec 2010
An article in the New York Times reports on FCC Chair Julius Genachowski's plan to regulate ISPs to be "neutral."
The text of his speech says:
Thus, the proposed framework would prohibit the blocking of lawful content, ...
He probably didn't intend to require that all CAN SPAM compliant spam be delivered, but that's what his words mean, since that variety of spam is legal in the U.S.
I can't see how the FCC can do this, since there is specific statute law that says that spam blocking is allowed, but it sure will create headaches for ISPs as spammers complain to the FCC about blocking their junk.
The Republicans in Congress (not usually my heros) will probably shoot this down, but if it shows any chances of going somewhere, it'll be bad.
My other sites
© 2005-2020 John R. Levine.
CAN SPAM address harvesting notice: the operator of this website will not give, sell, or otherwise transfer addresses maintained by this website to any other party for the purposes of initiating, or enabling others to initiate, electronic mail messages.