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