[Mimedefang] ZDnet article on new Zombie Trick
jebright at esisnet.com
Fri Feb 4 14:21:47 EST 2005
Now, let me place my disclaimer here.. I am not an attorney.
Let me repeat that.... I am NOT an attorney.
However, I believe the Canned Spam Act (unfortunately) overrides any and all
state level laws regarding spam, liability and otherwise.
That said, providing an ISP is not contributing (through negligence or
otherwise) I think it would be very hard to prove that they were complicint,
especially if they do police their own customers. There is already case law
on the matter as well with an Earthlink case where Earthlink was deemed
within its rights to terminate first and ask questions later.
We have been blocking outgoing tcp port 25 from our dynamic ip pools for a
few years now, and it is a pretty standard thing to do. With this new version
of the zombie we may place the throttle back in place, or may start running
our outging mail through a complete SA scan now, or both, or something
different, future testing will tell.
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:08:55 -0600 (CST), Ian Mitchell wrote
> > Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 10:31:50 -0800
> > From: <Matthew.van.Eerde at hbinc.com>
> > 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. ;)
> I'm willing to bet many other states have similar addendums. Don't shoot
> the messenger clause.
> Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca
> MIMEDefang mailing list
> MIMEDefang at lists.roaringpenguin.com
EsisNet.com Webmail Client
More information about the MIMEDefang