> >It seems to me, both from his allegations and from the
> >phraseology of the "Best Practices for Being Permanently Added to the
> >RBL", that web hosting services are being treated unfairly in the
> >following circumstance:
> >
> >Company S(pam) has a web site, hosted on the servers of
> >web-presence-provider Company P(rovider).
...
> That's right. It stops the practice of using a sacrificial account, from
> AOL or netcom, to spam for a web-site that is otherwise protected. Does it
> make a difference that they didn't spam from their own ISP?
Some people don't know where to draw the line though, is it just the ISP
that hosts the site or all sites linked to that site and so
on until there isn't a net?
This isn't hypothetical as we've been in that position, a spammers
site had a link to ours (and attached a copy of that page to a spam)
so one spamee decided we must be spammers too and filtered us.
As an innocent 3rd party who has no control over who links to our site
(or mentions it in spam) it becomes a simple DOS (lets make a site that
links to the top 100 web sites and make up a spam)
brandon
