Today's post is from Laura Atkins of Word to the Wise. She relates a frustration that I personally share: Google's seeming lack of caring about abuse emanating from their own networks and services. She writes:
So, SRV records help you publish data for your domain, helping for easy (or auto) configuration of an email client for using mail at that domain. Should I implement SRV records for my domain? Is it widely used by MUAs or mobile devices like iPhones and Android Phones? Is it a security risk to tell people where my IMAP/POP3 servers live? What do you think?
I asked fellow blogger (and email expert) John Levine the following: "The Supreme Court overturned the Jaynes conviction on First Amendment grounds, yes? I'm wondering what that could mean from the spam filtering perspective." Find his very detailed answer here.
I've been talking to folks a lot these past couple of days about the potential legalities around blocking unwanted spam from non-profit, political or advocacy senders. From what I understand, this is pretty likely to be legal. The first amendment limits government action as it relates to restricting speech. But the first amendment doesn't apply to private parties; there is no constitutional "right" that private party number one must accept a message from private party number two. That seems cut and dry. CAN-SPAM certainly doesn't touch on it; it doesn't say a spam filterer can't block certain kinds of messages.
Yesterday on Twitter, somebody asked about how DNSBLs are restricted by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Apparently there's some advocacy group somewhere who is upset that they're listed on a blacklist, and they seem to be investigating potential opportunities for legal recourse.