At 16:51 6/18/98 -0400, you wrote:
Yes. Any spam blocking when you aren't a party to the email is illegal. You are an attorney. Come on. This isn't relevent. Nor is it a departure from anything I have said, previously.
So quote the law. The relevant parts of the law. Otherwise, shut up.
This reads like a political attack. (#25: claim your opponent has waffled, but offer no evidence that anything is different). But I'm not running for any office. My credibility has no relevance to the truth of whether or not 2511 can apply to network providers. Its federal law. Network providers and employees ought to be roughly aware of the laws which apply to them. And certainly not misled.
And people spouting the law ought to know something about the law they're spouting.
Telling people a particular law can't possibly apply to them when in fact it can seems like a gross disservice. It is obvious now that it can apply. Its also just as clear that there are some legal limitations on what network providers can do with "their equipment".
So cite the relevant codes. Failure to quote the relevant parts of the relevant laws just will prove you're wrong.
Yes, but apparently you don't. This isn't the only way its handled. Some people "transparently" intercept SMTP. 6 months ago I pointed out UUCP. And there is also route filtering via BGP RBL. If they aren't a party to the communication, then its illegal. (like I said before)
Key here: YOU said. Unfortunately for you, the Congress hasn't.
I'm really disappointed that people keep claiming that 2511 can't possibly apply to a network provider, in spite of the now overwhelming proof to the contrary. But then apparently 2/3s of the democrats think that Clinton didn't screw Monica. And some people think Nixon didn't break any laws. I can't change that sort of blind belief.
WHAT overwhelming proof? Cite the sentence! Show a legal case or opinion that says it applies? I challenge you right here and now to put up or shut up.
6 months ago, I could understand that behavior, since I was offering my opinion based on my reading the text of the statute. It was arguable, and I argued well, I think, but perhaps not well enough. But given the revelations of the 1988 amendment and its hearings, which support my reading of the text, and everything I said 6 months ago and am saying now, I just can't believe there are still people who argue this.
*Sigh*....why don't you ask a lawyer or judge what role hearings play in their interpretation of a law?
At this point, there is nothing to be gained by argument on the applicability of 2511 to network providers. All the evidence is now available, make your own decision. I've brought it to your attention.
Meaning: I can't win, so I'll make it look like I'm being a good netizen. OK. Play it your way. Back into the Fruitcake Filter you go! What do spammers and nails have in common? They're both intended for hammering. Dean Robb PC-Easy On-site computer services (757) 495-EASY [3279]