My apologies. I confused Karl Denninger with Karl Auerbach, who is an attorney. In response to Karl Denninger: At 2:16 PM -0400 6/18/98, Karl Denninger wrote:
Dean, you keep changing your tune.
First you said *any* spamblocking was illegal.
Yes. Any spam blocking when you aren't a party to the email is illegal. Nor is it a departure from anything I have said, previously. So, does this mean you agree that *some* spamblocking is illegal? (I suspect not, but surprise me.) 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. 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".
Now you're looking for someone who is spamblocking IN TRANSIT (ie: not to or from an end customer).
As I have said before, transit providers are clearly not parties to transiting traffic. And I was looking for a Network Service (transit) provider before.
How would THAT come about, pray tell? Do you know how modern SMTP based email actually *works*?
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 as well. 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) 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. 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. 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. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean@av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP/DCE http://www.av8.com We Make IT Fly! (617)242-3091 x246 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At 05:12 PM 6/18/98 -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
My apologies. I confused Karl Denninger with Karl Auerbach, who is an attorney.
I was wondering when Karl got a JD <grin>.
In response to Karl Denninger:
At 2:16 PM -0400 6/18/98, Karl Denninger wrote:
Dean, you keep changing your tune.
First you said *any* spamblocking was illegal.
Yes. Any spam blocking when you aren't a party to the email is illegal. Nor is it a departure from anything I have said, previously.
So, does this mean you agree that *some* spamblocking is illegal? (I suspect not, but surprise me.)
The only way you could do it is by blocking the packet stream based on source or detination addrs. If I was on either end, and even if it was caused by one of my users, we'd be talkin'. Either in, or out, of a court-room, depending on whether your worth more than a burnt light-bulb, or not. What you're proposing is STUPID and dangerous. We run SSH encrypted VPN streams between our sites, and our customers. No way you can filter on content.
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.
In which country?
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".
Ain't no limitations. No CASH, no VOTE. It's that simple. Customers and shareholders are the only ones with a vote around here. Anything else is at our discretion.
How would THAT come about, pray tell? Do you know how modern SMTP based email actually *works*?
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 as well. 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)
Your credibility is toast now. Karl not knowing how SMTP works? <hehehe> It is, to laugh <HA!>
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.
When the local gov start subsidizing my bandwidth, then they might get a small vote. Until then, they can PUAR. _________________________________________________ Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc. Colorado Springs, CO - Livermore, CA - Morgan Hill, CA Domain Administrator MHSC2-DOM and MHSC3-DOM Administrative and Technical contact ____________________________________________ InterNIC Id: MHSC hostmaster (HM239-ORG) e-mail: <mailto:hostmaster@mhsc.com>mailto:hostmaster@mhsc.com web -pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/>http://www.mhsc.com/
participants (2)
-
Dean Anderson -
Roeland M.J. Meyer