Subject: [Asrg] Jay-Random subject line

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 11:25:02 -0400

Last month I prepared expert testimony for a case. Not a big deal in itself.

Without disclosing the parties or the causes of action, it was a spam case,
with several distinct kinds of claims.  My E-T provided to one litigator a
tool to increase the liklihood of a set of outcomes broadly beneficial to
his or her client. The efficacy of this tool (the report) is still TBD.

I used RFC 3227 Evidence Collection and Archiving, to approach the issue
of best evidence and best current practice.

I used RFC 3013 Recommended Internet Service Provider Security Services
and Procedures, to approach the larger issue of best evidence and ISP
security and best current practice.

I used DPR1998 The UK "Data Protection Act 1998, to approach the issues
of data protection, and jurisdictional awareness by multi-jurisdictional
operators.

I used RFC 821, 2821 and 1123, to approach the issue of MTA behavior.

I'm trying to think of what else would have been helpful to an author of
E-T contributing to litigation that contains "spam" (broadest definition)
and operator conduct as one of the issues subject to proof.

After all, I operate an ISP, so I'm ISP-centric (alt. Registrar-centric).

If anyone has a draft in progress along these lines, drop me a note.

Eric
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg