Re: OT: sorbs blacklisting scam
On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 21:06, Shane Chrisp wrote:
> > There need be no malicious intent. SORBS would be liable for
> > damages for negligence should anyone have the time or money
> > to invest in ridding the net of this nuisance.
> Why would sorbs be liable for this? It was your systems which forwarded the
> spam onto the sorbs system which then accepted. Pretty simple case of you
> relayed spam/backscatter and got listed. Sound like just about everyone here
> speaking out against sorbs has a chip on thier should because they either
> dont want to follow the practices to eliminate most of the spam out there.
There's nothing to stop SORBS trying that defence. It's not
quite bad enough to be laughed out of court but it would
certainly never fly. SORBS would lose on the basis of the
wording on their own website, possibly with the assistance
of the WayBack Machine or other archives.