[Mimedefang] ZDnet article on new Zombie Trick

[WBrown at e1b.org]

mimedefang-bounces at lists.roaringpenguin.com wrote on 02/04/2005 11:08:55 
AM:

> > 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. ;)

The CANSPAM act only allows ISPs to sue spammers, the recipients can not 
sue.  It sounds like IL's law (without having read it) may prevent the ISP 
selling the pink contract from being sued.  Of course, if they were a 
reputable ISP, they wouldn't write a pink contract, their contract would 
contain a clause for immediate suspension pending an investigation for 
termination and would line up to sue the spammer for violating the terms 
of service.  If they don't block their spamming customer, I think they 
should get sued.

The rationale pushed by the lobbyists that wrote CANSPAM is that the ISP 
pays the price for the extra bandwith, storage, etc for handling the junk 
mail.  Well, we pay for an OC3 to a backbone carrier, our own storage, 
etc, so why the H$** can't we sue the spammers?