North American Network Operators Group

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

RE: SORBS Contact

  • From: Noel
  • Date: Tue Aug 15 01:08:38 2006

Last time I saw someone so strenously crying that 'thou must accept
mail' and trying so hard to justify why we should accept it was a low
life toss pot scum sucking spammer, ooops I mean direct marketer, ahh
stuf fit, both the same thing  ...    not implying anything here but if
the shoe fits....

On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 06:46, David Schwartz wrote:
> [combined responses]
> > You do realize that when we talk about "sending" data we are using
> > language in a very loose way, right?  Data isn't actually sent.  When I
> > "send" a packet of data, I still retain that data.  If you lose it you
> > have only lost your copy of it, not mine.
> 	The packet includes its origin, destination, next hop, and like
> information. If the copy were identical to the original in all respects, it
> would not be a copy. There must be some distinction between the two, and it
> is that distinction that makes the "copy" useful. (That's why you made it.)
> > Are you one of those people that makes an extra photcopy when you have
> > to fax one to someone?
> 	Why fax something to someone at all then? If the fax really is the same as
> the original, why bother faxing? Obviously, there is a difference between
> the two copies, and the value of the duplicate is in that difference.
> 	The fact that the information can change physical form doesn't mean it
> isn't a coherent object. For example, my car may exchange electrons with
> your sidewalk, but that doesn't make it any less my car. The value of the
> car is not in which particular electrons it has (which can change) but in
> their arrangement and utility (which does not).
> 	If I have some information that I want to get to a particular place, and I
> make a copy and dispatch it toward its destination, that copy with its
> destination information behaves just like my car does. It changes on the
> way, but it does not ever become any less my car (or the ultimate
> recipient's car) regardless of whose roads it travels over.
> > > 	Your argument is similar to a mall that claims they can
> > > shoot people who
> >
> > It is illegal to shoot people whether they enter your mall or not.
> 	Precisely. Your obligation not to destroy someone else's data is a basic
> tort obligation that applies to how you must treat other people's property,
> even if it happens to be on "your network".
> > > 	The same would be the case if I used FedEx to return
> > > something of yours to
> > > you. If they destroyed your property, you would have a claim
> > > against them
> > > even though you didn't pay them for anything.
> > IANAL but I am pretty sure that my claim would be against you, not
> > FedEx.  You would have to counter claim against FedEx because you made
> > the contract with them.
> 	You could make a claim against me and I could counter claim against FedEx.
> But you could also claim against FedEx directly. They destroyed your
> property.
> >Whatever you're smoking, you've really gotta share some with the rest of
> >us. :P I guarantee you that there is not a single packet that I will route
> >which is neither from nor to someone I have a contract with. If you want
> >to give away free service to people without contracts that is your right,
> >but I sure as hell don't have to.
> 	Transit networks route many packets that are neither from nor to anyone
> they have a contract with. They pass the traffic from aggregators to
> aggregators. This is the same as a person who walks from store to store in a
> mall even though he has no contract with the stores, the stores have
> contracts with the mall.
> >Packets are not property, there is no intrinsic value in returning them to
> >sender. Plus I guarantee you if you drop off a package with Fedex and
> >don't pay for it (thus entering into a contract with them for services),
> >they will eventually throw it in the trash rather than deliver it.
> 	Packets are property. There is no value in returning them to sender but
> there is value in delivering them to the recipient. If the lack of return
> value is evidence against property, why is the presence of delivery value
> not evidence for?
> 	I don't deny that you can drop a packet on the floor if nobody paid you to
> carry it and you did nothing to solicit its presence on your network. That
> is not the same as the case where somebody paid you to carry the packet, but
> the person who paid you is not the owner of the packet but merely someone
> similarly contracted by the owner.
> >This is no different from me authorizing Mail Boxes Etc to be my
> >proxy for UPS packages, and them being allowed to simply discard
> >anything from, say, an ex-wife.   My ex-wife has no claim, in this
> >hypothetical, against MBE for tossing my package in the trash,
> >because they're acting as my agent.
> 	You are quite correct *if* they are the agent for the intended recipient.
> In the general case, a transit carrier will not be an agent for the intended
> recipient and possibly not for the originator either.
> >Of course, that only applies if you're dumb enough to answer '250 OK' to
> >the '.' after the DATA.  You 5xx that puppy anywhere before that, and you
> >haven't taken custody of that data...
> 	Exactly. I think the mail case is simpler though because it is quite rare
> for an email message to wind up in the hands of someone who has no
> contractual relationship with either the sender or the recipient. Exceptions
> would include things like relay rape where I think it's quite reasonable to
> argue that the purely abusive nature of the transaction (and the sender's
> specific selection of your relay) justify dropping it on the floor.
> 	Someone who chose to hand an email to you specifically even though you are
> neither the sender nor the recipient and hope that you would deliver it is
> not the same as someone who sent a packet to you because you are the route
> towards the recipient.
> 	I suppose another version of the FedEx hypothetical would be if FedEx
> advertised that they would carry packages to Denver without fee but then
> destroyed half of them. BGP advertisements and DNS MX records are
> solicitations for other people's property.
> 	I would also remind everyone that the interception or diversion of
> electronic communications is illegal in the United States, even if you do
> not look at the contents. (There are exceptions, of course, but the law
> definitely is not "it's your network, do whatever you want with the data on
> it".)
> 	DS