[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/04/2005 11:08:55 AM: > > Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 10:31:50 -0800 > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: [Mimedefang] ZDnet article on new Zombie Trick > > > > Why would the ISP do this? To protect themselves from being sued by the > > spam recipients' ISPs. > > > > The Laws in the State of IL include exemptions of liability to the ISP > that transfers the email and places the liability of SPAM on the original > sender. So the ISP doesn't have to worry about being sued, now the user on > the other hand? Might be a wise idea to get familiar with VBA and other > Windows scripting techniques. ;)
The CANSPAM act only allows ISPs to sue spammers, the recipients can not sue. It sounds like IL's law (without having read it) may prevent the ISP selling the pink contract from being sued. Of course, if they were a reputable ISP, they wouldn't write a pink contract, their contract would contain a clause for immediate suspension pending an investigation for termination and would line up to sue the spammer for violating the terms of service. If they don't block their spamming customer, I think they should get sued. The rationale pushed by the lobbyists that wrote CANSPAM is that the ISP pays the price for the extra bandwith, storage, etc for handling the junk mail. Well, we pay for an OC3 to a backbone carrier, our own storage, etc, so why the H$** can't we sue the spammers? _______________________________________________ Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang