Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett
|
That entire thread was reflexive in nature and did not take into consideration that Godaddy was protecting their interests as they pertain to the CAN-SPAM Act.
Following the guidelines as described in said act, Godaddy ensured that they performed their due diligence in the matter as the host of the domain in question by ensuring that the domain was disabled after the threshold of spam complaints was exceeded. Was it inconvenient for their client? Yes. Did they reduce liability on their behalf in the matter? Yes. (And that last sentence is all that counts to Godaddy's legal department)
Everything else in that thread was a matter of opinion regarding the policies of Godaddy. The perceived incompetence of the representatives had nothing to do with the procedures that are in place to circumvent Godaddy being held legally liable for a violation of the aforementioned act.
As usual though, such depth of interpretation regarding the entire scenario escaped the participants of the thread and the Godaddy bashing began. No surprise there.