Re: OT: sorbs blacklisting scam

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 09:13:39AM -0400, John Ackermann N8UR wrote:
> The standard for other plaintiffs, which varies a bit state-by-state,
> requires (a) a defamatory statement (b) published to third parties which
> (c) the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false (that
> third requirement is relatively new and may not apply in all cases).
> 
> Just what is a "defamatory statement" gets interesting, but in general,
> it's a statement that "tends to injure the plaintiff's reputation and
> expose the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or
> degradation" (quote from a Minnesota case).

and an RBL listing is a statement that spam has been received from a
particular IP address - this is 1. a statement of verifiable fact (i.e.
"truth"), and 2. not a defamatory statement - it identifies only an
*IP Address*, it does not identify any particular individual (i.e. the
plaintiff) so can not injure their reputation or expose them to public
hatred, contempt, ridicule or degradation.


craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)