Re: OT: sorbs blacklisting scam
On Sunday 30 April 2006 13:13, Mike Bird wrote:
> 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.
Ok its quite obvious that you have zero clue. You admitted that 'your' system
sent the message to sorbs and now your complaining about it. Everyone else is
laughing at you because rather than preventing this by making your systems
reject this at the smtp conversation and making it the responsibilty of the
sending mta, your just raving on about legal actions which would get laughed
out of court no matter how much money was thrown at it.
Shane
Reply to: