I would like to open by clarifying that there is a difference between Anti-spammer to what both the The Commercial Emailers Business Association and I refer to as Cybercops, and I quote to establish a common ground in which to base this discussion.

Anti-Spammers

Cybercops are NOT to be confused with legitimate "Anti-Spammers," who are just normal folks fed up with spammers and their deceitfulness.

Nearly EVERYONE is an Anti-Spammer!

Frankly put, anti-spammers are NICE PEOPLE who are thoroughly ticked-off at the volume of garbage that fills their email boxes daily.

The reality is that average, everyday people are being driven over the edge by spammers until the expletive deletes flow from the keyboard in frustration over a situation that has grown out of control.

Quoted From: The Commercial Emailers Business Association

I do not believe that all "Cybercops" are unreasonable, though there are zealots that are a bit out of hand. Most "Cybercops" will distance themselves from the same even as I do. These zealots are no different in my opinion than Golf Balls Unlimited, and Cyberpromo who believe thier rights exceed the rights of another. N.A.N.A.E. (of which I am proudly a member) has a few of these so called "Cybercops" that seem to come and go, but the bulk of them fall under the above definition of anti-spammer. These can usually be separated by the Op-In vs absolutely no commercial email. Most of us are not against commercial email, but being burned by the so called Op-Out propaganda, we see Op-In as the only solution. Op-In also is not in violation of any ISP's AUP, and/or TOS therefore no violation of the sanctity of the ISP.

My explanation and as to what gives the anti-spammer the right to react and petition is based on Common Law, therefore sound.

Let's establish one fact. 99% of the machines that make up the internet are personally, or company owned, therefore the matter of private property rights is established. The links that connect these machines is a matter of ownership via the Backbone Providers, who have provided a thoroughfare from one machine to the other, thus the internet called the World Wide Web. The machine owners are subject to the AUP and TOS of their Backbone provider, and the client is subject to the TOS, and the AUP of their Internet Provider the machine owners. This is held together by assigned domains (this word was not just grabbed out of the air, so see Websters Dictionary for the definition of a domain). The lower domains are subject to the higher domains, and the domains are answerable to their client. Violation of sanctity of anothers domain the same usually result in war. The honoring of the sanctity, and rights of each domain, and the authority to rule is what prevents wars. The break down of this understanding is the bases in which the SPAM war has begun.

The users of these machines are clients of the machine owners. When a transmission connecting to (as in loading a webpage, or via email but not limited to) thus leaving the domain of one machine, and inters the domain of an other, they are guest of the second machine. Even as a guest in my house can and is expected to honor, and respect the rules of my house, it is reasonably expected that a visitor from one machine to another to respect and honor the TOS, and AUP of the other.

What give a vast number of Anti-Spammers the rights petition the cancelation of accounts, and post to USENET is defined by:

A) Clear cut violation of a rule such as the ISP/s TOS, and/or AUP. (Be it a client or visitor via email FTP, Telnet, and or but not limited to loading of a webpage [see part B]) in accordance with the same, be it a client of the ISP, or a visitor via webpage, email, FTP, Telnet, and/or but not limited to.

B) When the "spammer" exceeds the boundaries of the "spammers" ISP by entering the domain of an ISP that has forbidden the same action in accordance with their AUP, and/or TOS, they have violated the sanctity of that domain as guest of the same, therefore subject to reprisal and/or deportation via blocking, and/or petitioning of the abusers ISP for corrective action. If the abusers ISP refuses to take corrective action in regards to the actions of their client as guest, blocking the same is in order. (If murder is legal in the domain of king A, and his constituent crosses over the border into the domain of king B where murder is illegal, the same is subject to punishment.)

C) When the charter of a Newsgroup is violated by an off topic post an (action forbidden by the charter of most all Newsgroups), the same is in violation to the laws of that charter. The Anti-spammer, (or moderator if there is one) then has a right to petition, (or cancel in the case of the moderator) the same. Continued violation of the same is reason to proceed in the cancelation of the violators account, or the blocking of the IP should the ISP choose not take corrective action against their client's abusive behavior for the peace and tranquility of the said Newsgroup.

D) The owner of the machine, i.e. the ISP, due to the rights of ownership of his/her domain, and as a Service Provider has the given right to set his/her own TOS, and AUP to which the client agrees to for the rights and privileges of using the services of the same. Any violation of the same is therefore a civil criminal offence in any civilized country. When one crosses over into the domain, or machine of the same, via email or visiting a web pages but not limited to, the same is a visitor, and subject to the TOS and AUP the same as the client of the ISP. This is no different than any ruling under Common Law regarding a visitor from one country to another. Visitors are therefore bound to the TOS, and AUP of the machine during their time of visiting, be it by, but not limited to the loading of a webpage, email, FTP, and/or Telnet.

Cordially,

Duane K. Kelly
Proprietor - Kelly Freehold