On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 16:07:49 -0000, John Curran said: > > But I suspect a lot of companies are reading it as: "If a spammer sues you > > for using > > a block list that prevents them from spamming your customers, you can't end > > up > > owing money to the block list maintainers. But if you rely on the ARIN > > TAL, and get > > sued by an address hijacker, you could end up owing money to ARIN".
> It's is not "you owe money to ARIN", but it could be "you need to defend both > yourself and ARIN from your customers litigation should you get it wrong." Is there any workable way to remove or diminish the perception of liability in the case of using it *correctly*? I admit that (a) I'm not a lawyer and (b) when I actually tried to read it I couldn't actually tell if it was "you promise to defend us if you screw it up and customer traffic gets accidentally dropped on the floor" or "you promise to defend us if you use it correctly and miscreant traffic is intentionally dropped on the floor"... There's obviously a disconnect where people aren't worried about indemnifying Spamhaus for using their block list, but are worried about indemnifying ARIN for using the TAL.
pgpPfQJhUFewN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
