nanog mailing list archives
RE: Stealth Blocking
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer () mhsc com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 09:05:53 -0700
The original message never made that distinction.
-----Original Message----- From: Shawn McMahon [mailto:smcmahon () eiv com] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 4:30 AM To: nanog () merit edu Subject: Re: Stealth Blocking 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 asolution forResi 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.
Current thread:
- RE: EMAIL != FTP, (continued)
- RE: EMAIL != FTP Robert Blayzor (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Craig Partridge (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Jim Mercer (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Alexei Roudnev (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Steve Sobol (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Valdis . Kletnieks (May 26)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Mitch Halmu (May 26)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Valdis . Kletnieks (May 26)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Mitch Halmu (May 26)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Valdis . Kletnieks (May 26)