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.
My other sites
© 2005-2018 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.