In message <a882c67b-0bb5-4ee3-b4cf-7c5ee62cd...@consulintel.es>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg@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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
