On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 18:06:30 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:

Bring this case in and he/she will

That's what I like about you.

You are so sure of other people's motivations.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 18:06:30 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:

Bring this case in and he/she will

That's what I like about you.

You are so sure of other people's motivations.


-----------------------
Tom: Thanks for taking the time to see me. Now down to the problem. I
could not receive email for two whole weeks. I want to sue the buggers.

Attorney: ROTFLMAO! That's a good one Tom, now why did you really come in
here to see me.

---------------------

Sorry, I could not help it. ;-)

On Jul 9, 6:22 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 18:06:30 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:
Bring this case in and he/she will

That's what I like about you.

You are so sure of other people's motivations.

The "Black Hole List" works sort of the same way. Our customers,
specially AOL users who insist on using uncontrolled auto-responders
get listed quite often. They of course blame us as the provider so we
do get involved. I think you will find that these lists protect
themselves pretty well with the services contract they give the users.
The users agree to allow e-mail, tagged by BHL to be blocked from
their service. BHL has a list of criteria that can lead to you being
blocked, the generic answer is that you have been tagged as a spammer,
but if you look at the TOS you will find that they can use a lot of
other things too. As a customer, a hosting or POP mail provider can
subscribe, subjecting their down stream users to the "service". As it
is wide open that they can put you on the list on a whim, and a
customer/provider can use the list to block IP's, and it is all by
contract and paid for by the subscribers, I don't think you can do
anything about it. If so, let me know, I would love to provide info
for your suit. We have a group of peers that have been looking at this
for almost a decade and found no way to stop them so far.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
What is the Composite Blocking List, who owns it and how exactly do
they develop their data?

And how do they prevent email from being sent and/or received?

I'm asking because I'm thinking of suing them.

Just some guys trying to make money. The question is who is paying them.

JimH wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 17:35:29 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:09:25 -0000,
wrote:

On Jul 9, 5:01 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:31:48 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
What is the Composite Blocking List, who owns it and how exactly do
they develop their data?
And how do they prevent email from being sent and/or received?
I'm asking because I'm thinking of suing them.
What problem are you having?
Turns out that I was banned from sending emails for two weeks and
never knew it. And only to certian mail servers. I just found out
about it when I tried to send you an email. And I just received an
email from a group member that is two weeks old (after my ISP did a
little investigation).

Problem is that the IP that was banned isn't my IP. I have a
permanent IP that I pay through the nose for. When I called my
provider, I was told that the IP has never changed and that they don't
understand it either.

I want revenge. :)
Companies or organizations, or even individuals can use any blocking
service they wish and those services can block for whatever reason
they wish. In our business we deal with this all the time. Many of
them are just protection racquets, or just fronts for "reccomended"
hosting services that can "solve your problems". We have one customer
that uses a security monitor that constantly finds outdated **** to
blacklist for then follows up with a offer of their own provider.
Stupid internet customers are impressed with the self generated
"compliance" stickers they put on their sites. Either way, it is free
enterprise, you can not sue them for providing an "opinon" to paying
customers.
I sure as hell can if they banned me for no discernable reason.
If you are serious, good luck being able to find a lawyer who will not
laugh
you out of his office.
For starters, our legal assistance comes from an attorney that we've
known personally and professionally for over 30 years who has handled
all the legal needs faced by our family, including an adoption snafu,
and has been on retainer since I and Mrs. Wave were incorporated as an
LLC. Laugh at me? I don't think so.

Bring this case in and he/she will.


You have no damages.
Where did I say I was seeking damages? I'm seeking an end to a
practice that is restrictive, false and misleading.

I didn't say anything about damages.

I know........because you did not suffer any. ;-)

Was Tom trying to sell a boat or two? You can't prove he did not suffer
damages, however, Tom can provide evidence that he was prevented from
participating in commerce.

I'm in IT for a Fortune 100 company. Attorneys can always find
something to sue for, winning is a different subject all together.
Sometimes the cases that seem the most ridiculous get the most
attention and have the biggest impact. Think of the lady who sued
McD's for the hot coffee accident. Digging in deeper an attorney
would find prior to that accident there were over 600 burns resulting
from their coffee, enough to make the case serious. Additionally,
what wasn't reported was the actual amount awards to her was later
significantly reduced.

I think in this instance some kind of intent would need to be
established cause.

Anyway, on the IT side of things, this is normal. It happens to
everybody and every company at some point. Email server hiccup, one
goes down, etc. So if your IP address is static, it really doesn't
matter a whole lot. IP addresses only play a small role in email.
The bigger role is established by the email servers and information
embedded in them. Typically what will ban an IP address is the subnet
it is on. For instance, a lot of major sites and email servers are
hosted at server farms that have been assigned a range of IP
addresses, static or not. If a user in that assigned range spams
heavily it sets off red flags and any business tying into various anti-
spam software products will permanently or temporarily block all email
from a specific subnet.

I've also seen email servers sit on email while sending other messages
fine. I've watch messages sit in queue and not go anywhere for days
while other messages transact without issue.

As far as suing, I doubt it would get far. There's way to many
technical issues that would be more common than malice. My IT
division is one of the top 10 best in the entire world, and one of the
least understood things even by the most highly experienced IT
employee is email. It takes somebody who has written an email
application (I happen to have done such a thing) or somebody who
specializes in that field. Even an IT person who specialized in
managing an email server can be completely in the dark to the actual
details that go on. Now, if you talk to a Unix IT person who runs a
Unix based email server, then you have yourself somebody who
understands email.

You'd need an attorney that specialized in information technology
email transmissions, and they're aren't many especially considering
the above mentioned fact about IT experts. While I'm sure your
attorney is good, he's not as good as ours and I doubt he specializes
in this area. I bet he could argue the facts of a case, know the law,
and win, but when it comes to the painstaking details involved in this
situation there's just not enough evidence to prove much. You could
be stuck dead in the water when the information that needs to be
provided by whoever administers the servers has been tainted due to
lack of knowledge.

My opinion is, it was just a normal glitch, check the logs people
posted above otherwise and search for companies that block email.
Consider my Fortune 100 email address has been blocked before and we
couldn't do anything about it due to it being a normal error, I think
you'll be in the same boat.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
What is the Composite Blocking List, who owns it and how exactly do
they develop their data?

And how do they prevent email from being sent and/or received?

I'm asking because I'm thinking of suing them.


This may be what you are looking for:
http://cbl.abuseat.org/

Capt Jack R..

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:16:50 -0700, wrote:


My opinion is, it was just a normal glitch, check the logs people
posted above otherwise and search for companies that block email.
Consider my Fortune 100 email address has been blocked before and we
couldn't do anything about it due to it being a normal error, I think
you'll be in the same boat.

Thank you for a very informative post. I do have a static IP which
made the situation weirder as the reported IP that I was supposedly
posting from didn't even exist.

As to suing, I'm not going to sue anybody for something like this -
sometimes the characters here take things too seriously and it's much
too easy to poke them when they get on their high horse. :)

In any case, thanks again - very interesting information.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 02:24:41 GMT, Jack Redington
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
What is the Composite Blocking List, who owns it and how exactly do
they develop their data?

And how do they prevent email from being sent and/or received?

I'm asking because I'm thinking of suing them.


This may be what you are looking for:
http://cbl.abuseat.org/

Thanks Jack.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:16:50 -0700, wrote:


My opinion is, it was just a normal glitch, check the logs people
posted above otherwise and search for companies that block email.
Consider my Fortune 100 email address has been blocked before and we
couldn't do anything about it due to it being a normal error, I think
you'll be in the same boat.



As to suing, I'm not going to sue anybody for something like this -
sometimes the characters here take things too seriously and it's much
too easy to poke them when they get on their high horse. :)


" I'm asking because I'm thinking of suing them." " I'm seeking an end to
a
practice that is restrictive, false and misleading."
SWS, 7-9-07

Poke that. ;-)