[94681] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: WWPVD (was what the heck do I do know)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Feb 1 10:54:07 2007
To: "J. Oquendo" <sil@infiltrated.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 01 Feb 2007 09:29:12 CST."
<20070201152912.GA64047@infiltrated.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 10:50:35 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1170345035_13753P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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.. .:)
--==_Exmh_1170345035_13753P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFFwgxLcC3lWbTT17ARAjtQAKCoIqrxR4i9tGOhlLAm+R+vnlnP9ACfdid7
de6PETeaE2G4qCUHmwmIelU=
=bd8B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1170345035_13753P--
