nanog mailing list archives
Re: Stealth Blocking
From: Shawn McMahon <smcmahon () eiv com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 07:29:50 -0400
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 08:04:34PM -0400, Jason Slagle wrote:
And, as a business we wouldn't divert you. This is only a solution for Resi accounts.
You do realize, I assume, that if somebody thinks he's sending email directly to a certain server, and you divert it to another server, you're intercepting it under the terms of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986? That's allowed if it's necessary to provide the service, but good luck winning on that argument with the plaintiffs trotting out witnesses stating it's not necessary, just your choice.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: Stealth Blocking, (continued)
- Re: Stealth Blocking Dave Rand (May 24)
- Re: Stealth Blocking Valdis . Kletnieks (May 24)
- "Big Red" Tim Langdell, PhD (May 24)
- Re: "Big Red" Mitch Halmu (May 24)
- Re: "Big Red" Aaron (May 25)
- Re: "Big Red" Scott Francis (May 25)
- "Big Red" Tim Langdell, PhD (May 24)
- Re: Stealth Blocking John Fraizer (May 24)
- Re: Stealth Blocking Dave Rand (May 24)
- RE: Stealth Blocking Roeland Meyer (May 24)
- RE: Stealth Blocking Jason Slagle (May 24)
- Re: Stealth Blocking Shawn McMahon (May 25)
- Re: Stealth Blocking Jason Slagle (May 25)
- RE: Stealth Blocking Jason Slagle (May 24)
- Re: Stealth Blocking Shawn McMahon (May 25)
- Re: Stealth Blocking J.D. Falk (May 26)
- Re: Stealth Blocking mike harrison (May 26)
- RE: Stealth Blocking jlewis (May 25)
- Re: Stealth Blocking Shawn McMahon (May 25)
- Re: Stealth Blocking Dan Hollis (May 25)