[anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

In message <A882C67B-0BB5-4EE3-B4CF-7C5EE62CD931 at consulintel.es>, JORDI
PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> writes

>So, if I'm reading it correctly (not being a lawyer), a service provider not 
>acting against abuse when it has been informed of so, is liable.

don't get confused between the "Hosting" and "Mere Conduit" provisions

> I'm sure if the 
>service provider tries to avoid being "informed" by not looking at notifications 
>(email, postal, fax, etc.), they will also be liable in front of courts.

correct, but that's a "Hosting" aspect and that's not necessarily the
issue when considering spam (which is certainly some of what is being
considered under the generic "abuse" label)

-- 
richard                                                   Richard Clayton

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary 
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 185 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20200116/71d043ca/attachment.sig>