Dennis Simpson writes...
From: Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>
But when you take the step from advocacy to actions you are violating the law in almost every case. You can advocate anything, but you can't go tearing down buildings, or in this case, intercepting communications.
Filtering packets is not interception, it is disregard. If I ignore your packets and do not pass them to the next machine in the link, I am not intercepting your communications, I am ignoring them. Unless you are paying me to do so, I have no obligation to carry your packets.
I agree fully. Interception only takes place by a party whose role is not the carrying of the communication. The phone company is not doing an interception of your Chicago to New York phone call if they happen to route it via Dallas and Atlanta just because there are available lines there.
If my server checks message headers to determine validity before transferring to a spool file, I am not intercepting, I am determining message routing. As above, if you aren't paying me, I have no obligation to deliver something you handed me for delivery. Or are you suggesting mail servers should deliver mail without determining who it is for?
The only possible remaining obligation is with the receiver who is paying. If they actually _want_ spam, then the obligation to deliver is not met if spam is blocked. OTOH I know of no one (besides spammers) who actually want spam (and most spammers themselves don't want any from anyone else). -- Phil Howard | die3spam@no0where.edu w2x4y3z2@dumbads9.com stop0it3@no2where.com phil | w0x5y9z1@anyplace.edu stop4078@s8p6a5m7.com a4b3c9d3@no87ads9.net at | blow0me5@lame6ads.org end4it59@dumb6ads.edu no37ads5@no3where.edu milepost | suck7it0@anyplace.net eat77me9@spam8mer.org eat06me1@no0where.net dot | a8b9c5d3@no4where.edu no69ads7@anywhere.com stop7541@dumb6ads.com com | no9way51@noplace5.com die0spam@no9where.org w8x3y6z6@no6place.edu