[Asrg] Round 2 of the DNSBL BCP - "collateral damage"

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 07:56:07AM -0500, David Nicol wrote:
> in response to eventual production of term "public easement" in
> discussion of "damage" perhaps a form of "damage" which might
> be caused by listings could be found in case law indexed under
> "libel?"

That's a good point.  But (and here comes the amateur lawyering)
I believe that a valid defense against libel is truth.  If one states:

	"I received spam from 1.2.3.4 and I am listing 1.2.3.4."
or
	"I received spam from 1.2.3.4 and I am listing 1.0.0.0/8."
or
	"I am listing 1.0.0.0/8 because it's Wednesday and I feel like it."

then provided those statements are true, I don't see where
any libel has been committed.

Let me also note (continuing earlier analogy) that if you knock
on my door to request entry, or send me a letter that you want
me to read, or ask for http://www.example.com/private.html, and
in all cases, I decline your requests, that is not libel.

---Rsk