I'm always the last spam blogger to comment on these legal cases. I'll continue in that tradition by throwing in my two cents.
SpamSuite has a copy of the ruling which is only seven pages long. Some highlights from the document:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of –
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be . . . objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable . . . the technical means to restrict access. This grants antispam vendors the means to block mail that they feel is illegitimate and grants no recourse to senders, even if they are in compliance with the CAN-SPAM act.
Comcast now has a countersuit on the table against e360. This case could end up sinking those guys if Comcast decides to follow it all the way through.
PingBack from http://microsoftnews.askpcdoc.com/?p=2025
"Congress thinking ahead? Since when does that happen?"
Since around 1775, continuing until around 1790. Then it stopped.
"Comcast now has a countersuit on the table against e360. This case could end up sinking those guys if Comcast decides to follow it all the way through."
No it wouldn't. It would get those guys moved to Uunet (forgot who owns them now) or ATT or Insight or Google or Yahoo or Microsoft or NTT or Chinanet or Bora or VSNL etc.
I just posted on e360 losing its case against Comcast, so I thought I would look a bit into Comcast's