nanog mailing list archives
Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission...
From: "John Levine" <johnl () iecc com>
Date: 29 Nov 2014 20:17:45 -0000
i think of it as an intentional traffic hijack. i would be talking to a lawyer.
If the lawyer says anything other than that 47 USC 230(c)(2)(A) provides broad immunity for ISP content filtering, even if the filters sometimes screw up, you need a new lawyer. Filtering STARTTLS on port 587 is pretty stupid, but not everything that's stupid is illegal. R's, John PS: I know enough technical people at Comcast that I would be extremely surprised if it were Comcast doing this. There's plenty not to like about the corporation, but the technical staff are quite competent.
Current thread:
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission..., (continued)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Jay Ashworth (Nov 27)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Randy Bush (Nov 29)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Sander Steffann (Nov 29)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Jean-Francois Mezei (Nov 29)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Christopher Morrow (Nov 29)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... John Levine (Nov 29)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Christopher Morrow (Nov 29)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... joel jaeggli (Nov 29)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Christopher Morrow (Nov 29)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... William Herrin (Nov 30)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Sander Steffann (Nov 29)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Randy Bush (Nov 29)