From: (no name) (no email)
Date: Thu Feb 01 2007 - 10:50:35 EST
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 09:29:12 CST, "J. Oquendo" said:
> Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>
> > Bottom line is that in the absence of a promise -- explicit or implicit (!)
> > -- to the contrary, you can usually turn off your gear and get on with your life
>
> Promissory Estoppel might hinder shutting off the power.
>
> http://facstaff.gallaudet.edu/marshall.wick/bus447/promissory_estoppel.html
That could be as interesting to litigate as the hospital example, because:
a) it's likely that a lot of the offenders "relying" on the promise of RBL
service are qmail sites that don't even *realize* it.
b) I'm pretty sure that Paul wasn't aware of the qmail issue either.
So who, exactly, was promising (and to whom) that a given RBL was usable 6
years after it went belly up?
If anything, the cited legal definition page would seem to suggest that the
person who needs to keep running the RBL would be the person who made qmail
reference it.. .:)
|
|
|