nanog mailing list archives
Re: AOL holes again.
From: Shawn McMahon <smcmahon () eiv com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:23:41 -0500
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 06:47:31PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
Especially those who've read the 1986 law requiring it.Citation, please?
Title 18, Chapter 119, sections 2510 through 2522. It forbids "interception" of electronic mail. Interception is defined as "acquiring the contents", but it's defined broadly enough that if you get the message onto your hard drive and don't deliver it, obviously you weren't acquiring it for the purpose of delivering it, so you have intercepted it for reasons not related to providing the service, and thus have committed a felony for EACH email intercepted.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: AOL holes again., (continued)
- Re: AOL holes again. ken harris. (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Peter van Dijk (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. M. David Leonard (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Steve Sobol (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Shawn McMahon (Mar 20)
- RE: AOL holes again. M. David Leonard (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Shawn McMahon (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Shawn McMahon (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Dan Hollis (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Shawn McMahon (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Alan Clegg (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. James M. Shuler III (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Wayne (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Shawn McMahon (Mar 20)
- RE: AOL holes again. David Schwartz (Mar 21)
- RE: AOL holes again. Dan Hollis (Mar 21)