Just for completeness sake, Holomaxx did also file an amended complaint against Microsoft. Same sloppy legal work, they left in all the stuff about Return Path even though Return Path has been dropped from the suit. They point to a MAAWG document as a objective industry standard when the MAAWG document was merely a record of a round table discussion, not actually a standards document. I didn’t read it as closely as I did the Yahoo complaint, as it’s just cut and paste with some (badly done) word replacement.
So what’s the status of both cases?
The Yahoo case is going to arbitration sometime in July. Yahoo also has until May 20 to respond to the 1st amended complaint.
The Microsoft case is not going to arbitration, but they also have a response deadline of May 20.
I’m not a legal expert, but I don’t think that what Holomaxx has written fixes the deficits that the judge pointed out in his dismissal. We’ll see what the Y! and MSFT responses say a month from today.
Holomaxx status
H
RSS - Posts
How can they reference standards when Yahoo is a blackbox that can stray as far as they want from any standards? (Which in a lot of known situations they do)
Yahoo stick pretty closely to email standards. The problem is that most of the email that’s sent to them is sent by people who’ve apparently not read those standards, let alone understood them.
Yahoo actually strays far from the standards….they frequently lie about what’s really happening so senders are left clueless. (Their SMTP error codes are one example, their deferral codes are not RFC compliant, theres another).
Surprisingly, their best practices recommend senders segregate their mail stream (transactional, newsletter, marketing, etc) by IP. Now that sounds fine and dandy except for the fact that they specify to use different class C ips for each stream. That’s an irresponsible (and ridiculous) recommendation since IPv4 space is completely out.
If it were true that Yahoo didn’t follow standards, then Holomaxx wouldn’t have had to misrepresent a 4 year old MAAWG document to support their case.
My point is that the “standards” at Yahoo are unknown. Whatever Yahoo does or does not do is unknown. It’s a blackbox and it’s perfectly fine for it to be that way since they are a private company they can do as they wish and CDA further protects them. So, how is Holomaxx suppose to cite “standards” as they relate to Yahoo since the public would not have access to that information. This is Yahoo after all, they invented the “Domain Keys” standard.
“Yahoo frequently lies” is one of the most amusingly inaccurate comments I’ve ever read on thisblog.
right steve, domainkeys is a big big secret and nobody is ever allowed to know about it.
nobody. ever.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4870.txt
[…] Holomaxx Status […]
[…] Holomaxx Status […]