[anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Richard Clayton
richard at highwayman.com
Thu Jan 16 21:35:06 CET 2020
In message <A882C67B-0BB5-4EE3-B4CF-7C5EE62CD931 at consulintel.es>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> writes >So, if I'm reading it correctly (not being a lawyer), a service provider not >acting against abuse when it has been informed of so, is liable. don't get confused between the "Hosting" and "Mere Conduit" provisions > I'm sure if the >service provider tries to avoid being "informed" by not looking at notifications >(email, postal, fax, etc.), they will also be liable in front of courts. correct, but that's a "Hosting" aspect and that's not necessarily the issue when considering spam (which is certainly some of what is being considered under the generic "abuse" label) -- richard Richard Clayton Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 185 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20200116/71d043ca/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]