Re: more on filtering

["Dave Howe" <DaveHowe () gmx co uk>]

daryl () introspect net wrote:
> > I don't see how that is the same thing here.  I have an
> > agreement with cust X to provide services in accordance with
> > my AUP.  cust X resells that service to cust Y, etc.  cust Y
> > is bound to the terms and conditions of my agreement with
> > cust X, despite that I do not have a direct agreement with cust Y.
> Oh christ...network engineers trying to be lawyers.
>
> I don't know much, but I do know that legal agreements in the US are
> NOT transitive in this way, unless each agreement is included by
> reference in the other.
They aren't legally, but they are effectively.
If X must abide by your AUP, then any traffic they forward for Y must also
abide by your AUP (or whatever penalties are in your contract with X will
kick in) - it doesn't matter what X's contract with Y says, as your
contract is with X and any penalties are to be applied to X; It is
therefore in X's best interest to insist Y abides by the AUP or
indemnifies X for any penalties, and/or negotiates with you to make sure
only Y's traffic is cut off on breach of the AUP by Y, rather than all
traffic from X.