Re: RBL Update (Re: Lets go vixie!! rbl)

[Dean Robb <pceasy () norfolk infi net>]

At 16:51 6/18/98 -0400, you wrote:

> Yes. Any spam blocking when you aren't a party to the email is illegal. You
> are an attorney. Come on.  This isn't relevent. Nor is it a departure from
> anything I have said, previously.

So quote the law.  The relevant parts of the law.  Otherwise, shut up.

> This reads like a political attack. (#25: claim your opponent has waffled,
> but offer no evidence that anything is different). But I'm not running for
> any office.  My credibility has no relevance to the truth of whether or not
> 2511 can apply to network providers. Its federal law. Network providers and
> employees ought to be roughly aware of the laws which apply to them.  And
> certainly not misled.

And people spouting the law ought to know something about the law they're
spouting.  

> Telling people a particular law can't possibly apply to them when in fact
> it can seems like a gross disservice.  It is obvious now that it can apply.
> Its also just as clear that there are some legal limitations on what
> network providers can do with "their equipment".

So cite the relevant codes.  Failure to quote the relevant parts of the
relevant laws just will prove you're wrong.

> Yes, but apparently you don't.  This isn't the only way its handled. Some
> people "transparently" intercept SMTP.  6 months ago I pointed out UUCP.
> And there is also route filtering via BGP RBL. If they aren't a party to
> the communication, then its illegal. (like I said before)

Key here:  YOU said.  Unfortunately for you, the Congress hasn't.

> I'm really disappointed that people keep claiming that 2511 can't possibly
> apply to a network provider, in spite of the now overwhelming proof to the
> contrary.  But then apparently 2/3s of the democrats think that Clinton
> didn't screw Monica. And some people think Nixon didn't break any laws.  I
> can't change that sort of blind belief.

WHAT overwhelming proof?  Cite the sentence!  Show a legal case or opinion
that says it applies?  I challenge you right here and now to put up or shut
up.

> 6 months ago, I could understand that behavior, since I was offering my
> opinion based on my reading the text of the statute.  It was arguable, and
> I argued well, I think, but perhaps not well enough.  But given the
> revelations of the 1988 amendment and its hearings, which support my
> reading of the text, and everything I said 6 months ago and am saying now,
> I just can't believe there are still people who argue this.

*Sigh*....why don't you ask a lawyer or judge what role hearings play in
their interpretation of a law?

> At this point, there is nothing to be gained by argument on the
> applicability of 2511 to network providers.  All the evidence is now
> available, make your own decision.  I've brought it to your attention.

Meaning:  I can't win, so I'll make it look like I'm being a good netizen.
OK.  Play it your way.  Back into the Fruitcake Filter you go!





What do spammers and nails have in common?  They're both intended for
hammering.

Dean Robb
PC-Easy 
On-site computer services
(757) 495-EASY [3279]