Requirement to store email for 90 days.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/26217.html "Service providers are also required to keep customer records, including emails, for 90 days, under the bill." "The bill has to go to Senate, where it is expected to receive little opposition, before becoming law." Talk to your senators folks. See if they're going to pay for the disk arrays required to store 90 days worth of SPAM for each and every one of your customers. I suggest that congress get the spammers under control prior to enacting legislation that requires us to archive all email for 90 days. --- John Fraizer | High-Security Datacenter Services | EnterZone, Inc | Dedicated circuits 64k - 155M OC3 | http://www.enterzone.net/ | Virtual, Dedicated, Colocation |
From the same URL:
"The bill encourages ISPs to report suspicious activity on their networks (whatever that might be), even if it poses no immediate threat, and shield them from lawsuits from anyone" so just forward the spam to the authorities... after all, it is suspicous. Maybe some Al Quaida steggo hiding in it? On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:17:27 -0400 (EDT) "John Fraizer" <tvo@EnterZone.Net> wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/26217.html
"Service providers are also required to keep customer records, including emails, for 90 days, under the bill." "The bill has to go to Senate, where it is expected to receive little opposition, before becoming law."
Talk to your senators folks. See if they're going to pay for the disk arrays required to store 90 days worth of SPAM for each and every one of your customers.
I suggest that congress get the spammers under control prior to enacting legislation that requires us to archive all email for 90 days.
--- John Fraizer | High-Security Datacenter Services | EnterZone, Inc | Dedicated circuits 64k - 155M OC3 | http://www.enterzone.net/ | Virtual, Dedicated, Colocation |
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- jullrich@sans.org Collaborative Intrusion Detection join http://www.dshield.org
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, John Fraizer wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/26217.html
"Service providers are also required to keep customer records, including emails, for 90 days, under the bill." "The bill has to go to Senate, where it is expected to receive little opposition, before becoming law."
Talk to your senators folks. See if they're going to pay for the disk arrays required to store 90 days worth of SPAM for each and every one of your customers.
I suggest that congress get the spammers under control prior to enacting legislation that requires us to archive all email for 90 days.
Well...it's not quite like that. Here's the text: (URL posting doesn't work with their cgi. Go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search for bill number H.R. 3482, and pull up section 102 (b)) --- REPORTING OF DISCLOSURES A government entity that receives a disclosure under this section shall file, no later than 90 days after such disclosure, a report to the Attorney General stating the subparagraph under which the disclosure was made, the date of the disclosure, the entity to which the disclosure was made, the number of customers or subscribers to whom the information disclosed pertained, and the number of communications, if any, that were disclosed. The Attorney General shall publish all such reports into a single report to be submitted to Congress one year after enactment of the bill. --- That's the only place in the bill that mentions 90 days. However, it appears to me that they are referring to the period of time a government agency has to report to the Attorney General regarding the information that was disclosed. I'd love for somebody to point out the text indicating anybody is forced to archive anything. As best I can tell, and I'm the farthest thing from a lawyer, is that this bill doesn't mention anything about forcing anybody to archive anything. This has been debated for a couple of months now, and I'm not entirely convinced anybody knows the truth. As far as I can tell, the situations in which they can ask for your records is broadened, but that doesn't require you to keep records... I'd love for somebody to point out what I'm missing... Andy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
participants (3)
-
Andy Dills -
Johannes Ullrich -
John Fraizer