Subject: Re: [Asrg] Two options (was: Legal suggestions...)

From: "John Fenley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 19:06:18 -0600

Party #1:
sender
senders agents
senders isp
senders isps agents

Party #2:
Reciever
Recievers agents
Recievers isp
Recievers isps agents

Party #3:(Third Party)
Anyone who shouldn't be sooping on #1, or #2.
Basically everyone not in either party#1, or party#2

I am saying that the sender has the right to send anything they want.
I am saying that the reciever has the right to recieve anything they want.

THIRD PARTIES should not interfere with mail delivery.
This behavior should be illegal.

John Fenley

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

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

---

From: J C Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 18:20:41 -0700

On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 19:06:18 -0600 

> THIRD PARTIES should not interfere with mail delivery.  

This is fine fair and reasonable.

> This behavior should be illegal.

It is at this point that you depart from any reality that I want to be a
part of.

-- 
J C Lawrence                
---------(*)                Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. 
[email-masked]               He lived as a devil, eh?		  
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 20:17:10 -0600 (MDT)

> From: J C Lawrence <[email-masked]>

> ...

Without my let, leave, or hindrance, and also without any effect
I've seen on spam, my reality includes chapters 119 and 121 of
Part 1 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code.   See
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch121.html and
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch119.html
Or http://floridalawfirm.com/privacy.html
Or the rest of
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22electronic+communications%22+privacy
or
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22electronic+communications%22+privacy+email

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

---

From: mathew <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 08:32:52 -0400

> This behavior should be illegal.

Maybe there's some anti-spam technique I've been missing, but I'm not 
aware of any third parties (as you define it) who are interfering with 
e-mail, with the possible exception of the FBI and NSA.

mathew

---

From: Daniel Feenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 08:37:03 -0400 (EDT)

> This behavior should be illegal.

Can you give an example of such a third party operating today? I am not
aware of any transit providers doing so, and I would assume that MAPS and
similar blacklists would be considered "Receiver's agent", at least I
would consider them so. I would even consider transit providers and
exchanges agents for senders and receipients - what else are they?

This is a critical aspect of the debate and deserves to be made clear. If
all you are worried about is that PAIX is going to start filtering port 25
exchange traffic without telling the customers (which are ISPs), then I
don't have any serious objection your concern, although I would remain
concerned that it would be over-broadly applied, and have a "chilling
effect" on ISPs wishing to offer effective anti-spam services.

Or by "third party" do you mean the government?

---

From: Matt Sergeant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:42:51 +0100

> Basically everyone not in either party#1, or party#2

Under your definition there is no third party. I'm unsure whether you 
understand email or not. Unless you're talking about peering points, 
which just deal in network traffic, not in protocols.

Matt.

---

From: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 10:21:29 -0400

...

  "Sec. 2511. - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or
electronic communications prohibited"

  I fail to see how normal packet forwarding by third parties is
"interception".  The title also includes text about "disclosure".

  Filtering spam (or other traffic) out of your network does not
involve disclosure, or interception.

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 10:17:44 -0400

> I am saying that the reciever has the right to recieve anything they want.

  And the third party has the right to do anything *they* want with
traffic passing through their network.

 Are you really saying that the backbone providers have *no* say in
what traffic they handle?

> This behavior should be illegal.

  I can see the lawsuits now.  1000 spammers trying to send a billion
spams each, and the backbone starts dropping packets.  Each spammer
then sues the backbone provider for "interfering" with mail delivery.

  You're allowing endpoints to sue third parties for failing to
deliver services that they had never contracted to deliver to the
endpoints.  This is nonsense.

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:23:09 -0600 (MDT)

> From: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>

> involve disclosure, or interception.

Dropping packets to deal with congestion or even potential congestion
(e.g. RED) doesn't seem to me to involve "Interception and disclosure"
of "communications."  Filtering mail based on its use of particular
words (e.g. "FREE!"), phrases, or topics (e.g. "porn") or based on the
identity of its sender (i.e.  other than IP address) sounds different.

I am not qualified except to guess whether the ECPA might apply to
spam filtering when done by other than agents of the sender or receiver.
What are your qualifications for making your authoritative sounding
statement about this U.S. law?

---

From: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 14:43:34 -0400

> identity of its sender (i.e.  other than IP address) sounds different.

  Systems already block source IP's: 192.168/16, 10/8, 29/8, etc.

  Spammers already use unallocated IP's for source addresses, because
it makes them less traceable.  How is filtering out traffic from
unallocated addresses different from filtering out addresses known to
send spam?  There is significant overlap between them.

> statement about this U.S. law?

  Your misintepretation of my intent?

  I'm not a lawyer, and don't play one on TV.  Until two lawyers duke
it out in court, to set precedents and interpretations, there is *no*
legal basis for *any* interpretation of the law which relates "spam
filtering" to "interception".

  Alan DeKok.