[Techtalk] sendmail/RBL question (linuxchix)

[Raven, corporate courtesan]

Heya --

Quoth Kai MacTane (Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 12:28:20PM -0800):
> Indeed. This is what makes me wonder why MAPS seems to have fared so poorly 
> in court cases. I keep reading about how someone sues MAPS over being put 
> in the RBL, and eventually, MAPS winds up settling with them. To which my 
> response is, "Huh? Why do they need to settle? This is not up for debate; 
> MAPS isn't stopping anyone's mail, they're just putting out a list of open 
> relays. This is *provable* stuff. How can these attackers have a leg to 
> stand on?"

1)	Lawsuits and lawyers are very expensive.
2)	Judges and juries by and large do not understand technology, and
        need to have it explained in clear and unarguable terms by experts.
3)	Experts are expensive.
4)	People will sue over damn near anything.
5)	Lots of people will sue if they think they can get money out of
        it.
6)	All the prosecuting lawyer has to do is confuse the judge/jury
        enough about technology to introduce doubt, to get a long and 
        involved court case.
7)	Most lawyers bill by the hour.

	Since technology isn't something most people understand or are
familiar with, it may be more financially feasible for MAPS (or whoever)
to just settle than to pay the lawyer fees.  This, of course, encourages
more people to sue, and sets a bad precedent for future cases, making
MAPS look kind of guilty.  ("Otherwise, why would they settle?")

	It's wrong and it shouldn't happen and I agree that MAPS should
have won those court cases.  Unfortunately, I don't think these
cases were actually about harm caused through technology as much as they
were about money.  Getting the other guy to pay if they lose still often
won't get you through the court case, if you don't have the few thousand
spare to pay the lawyer until then.  Repeat this for every time you get
sued.  It gets expensive fast.
 
Cheers,
Raven, lawyer's daughter

"That should be: "If cryptography is outlawed, only bhgynjf jvyy unir
 pelcgb!" Or maybe, for maximum effect, "...only pvumbxt xjmm ibwf
 dszqup!""
 -- Kai, on 'better' cryptography

MD5 (outlaws) = 4c86ccf216da19edcc4b80e3824b67ab
 -- my response