From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 24 14: 7:25 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85D0F150E8 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 14:07:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 14:05:53 -0700 From: "David Schwartz" To: , Cc: , Subject: RE: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 14:05:53 -0700 Message-ID: <000001bf06d0$9652db80$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: <14315.58757.824117.496696@avalon.east> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Quoth Brett Glass on Fri, 24 September: > : > : See http://maps.vix.com/dul/ > : > Personally, I'd love to see a the results of a liability suit > against the DUL project for damages resulting from non-delivery > of mail as a result of intentional blocking by a third party > to the exchange. Whee fun! As far as I know, nobody is under a positive obligation to carry your mail to its destination unless you employ them to do so. So this "intentional blocking" (as you call it) is a failure to do something they are under no obligation to do anyway. I don't see how any liability could result from it. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message