|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl)
At 16:51 6/18/98 -0400, you wrote: >Yes. Any spam blocking when you aren't a party to the email is illegal. You >are an attorney. Come on. This isn't relevent. Nor is it a departure from >anything I have said, previously. So quote the law. The relevant parts of the law. Otherwise, shut up. >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. And people spouting the law ought to know something about the law they're spouting. >Telling people a particular law can't possibly apply to them when in fact >it can seems like a gross disservice. 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". So cite the relevant codes. Failure to quote the relevant parts of the relevant laws just will prove you're wrong. > >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. >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) Key here: YOU said. Unfortunately for you, the Congress hasn't. >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. WHAT overwhelming proof? Cite the sentence! Show a legal case or opinion that says it applies? I challenge you right here and now to put up or shut up. >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. *Sigh*....why don't you ask a lawyer or judge what role hearings play in their interpretation of a law? >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. Meaning: I can't win, so I'll make it look like I'm being a good netizen. OK. Play it your way. Back into the Fruitcake Filter you go! What do spammers and nails have in common? They're both intended for hammering. Dean Robb PC-Easy On-site computer services (757) 495-EASY [3279]
|