North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Reporting Little Blue Men

  • From: Henry Linneweh
  • Date: Mon Jan 26 14:51:14 1998

Yes that is a valid point but if a client of yours gets such unsolicited email

then the contents forwarded to you are fair game in the interception and
your methods can then interdict and block the rout from the spam soure
based on valid complaint from the client. Make this part of the policy
statement to your clients encouraging them to forward and complain
about unsolicited email...

Henry R. Linneweh

Dean Anderson wrote:

> At 11:42 PM -0500 1/23/98, Howard Goldstein wrote:
> >In order for there to be a prohibited interception, one must have
> >acquired the substance of another's communications, i.e., the
> >"contents."  s2511(1)
>
> This is a good point. I'm not sure I buy it, but it at least is a
> reasonable point.  It seems to me that the change of definition was to
> loosen the meaning of intercept so that one doesn't have to actually block
> to be in violation, rather than to require reading of the contents for
> there to be a violation, as you interpret.
>
> >The wiretap act is intended to protect proprietary rights in message
> >content from another's wrongful taking.  There's no indication
> >anywhere of intent to gaurantee a level of service for content's
> >transmission.
>
> I don't think anyone would expect you to guarantee a level of service. But
> it is not unreasonable to expect that you are not arbitrarilly and
> capriciously discrimminating against people who reasonably expect you to
> pass their packets.  This goes far beyond spamming.  Consider what might
> happen if it actually is permissible for people to arbitrarilly blackhole
> another person or company, at a whim.  Suppose Microsoft decides to take
> out Netscape during a dispute. Etc.  Such behavior is already illegal,
> given my interpretation.  I am looking forward to having people send me
> those letters, so we can test this.
>
> >I find it somewhat reassuring that those desperate spammers who have
> >litigated related matters haven't attempted recovery through the civil
> >remedy provided by s2520.  Don't you agree that they would have tried
> >if the theory had even a tiny bit of merit?
>
> You have to know about it.  It appears the spammers aren't very good at
> getting good lawyers so far, considering how they phrased their cases so
> far. But the civil damages aren't much, either.
>
>                 --Dean
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>            Plain Aviation, Inc                  [email protected]
>            LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP          http://www.av8.com
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



--
4i1