North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl)
- From: Dean Robb
- Date: Fri Jun 19 00:28:07 1998
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
>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
>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
On-site computer services
(757) 495-EASY