nanog mailing list archives
Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission...
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl () iecc com>
Date: 3 Dec 2014 13:33:15 -0500
There’s a big difference between illegal and civil liability for breech of contract. If I am paying someone for access to the internet, then I expect them not to modify, alter, rewrite, or otherwise interfere with my packets. If they do so, they may not have violated 47 USC 230, but they have certainly failed to provide the service that I am paying for.
Uh huh. Please let us know the case number when you sue, so we can find out howthat pans out.
By the way, I see you're a customer of Black Lotus. You might want to review sections 7 and 10 of the terms of service to which you've agreed:
https://www.blacklotus.net/terms-of-service/Your v6 traffic appears to arrive via a tunnel at HE. See sections 9 and 10 here, which you've also agreed to:
http://www.he.net/tos.html R's, John
Current thread:
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Livingood, Jason (Dec 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Livingood, Jason (Dec 01)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Owen DeLong (Dec 03)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Owen DeLong (Dec 03)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... John R. Levine (Dec 03)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Owen DeLong (Dec 03)