See what happens when we level the rain-forests - we destroy a cure for this... On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Dean Anderson wrote:
If you read the statute, it permits monitoring for quality control purposes, which your flowstats are.
There is no exception in 2511 for what Ravi did. Does Verio often reveal confidential information about their customers' customers traffic? I wonder how Verio's ISP customers/peers feel about that. I know I wouldn't be happy if UUnet or BBN thought they could capture and publish my customers packets. My customers include insurance and health care (privacy intensive) companies. They would be very unhappy if we used someone who had this attitude.
The anti-spammers usually claim the abuse exception as justification for instituting a block. Its their best (though still flimsy) argument. Its flimsy since the congress has the authority to regulate or ban spam, and the congress did pass laws banning junk faxes, and limiting calls to cell phones, yet they have not yet banned spam. Nor has any court found spam by itself to be an abuse. The one spam related law that was before the congress would have placed some requirements on spammers, but would have made it specifically not an abuse for 2511. In other words, the congress doesn't agree with the anti-spammers.
--Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean@av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-- I am nothing if not net-Q! - ras@poppa.thick.net