Vernon Schryver <vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com> wrote:
Dropping packets to deal with congestion or even potential congestion
(e.g. RED) doesn't seem to me to involve "Interception and disclosure"
of "communications." Filtering mail based on its use of particular
words (e.g. "FREE!"), phrases, or topics (e.g. "porn") or based on the
identity of its sender (i.e. other than IP address) sounds different.
Systems already block source IP's: 192.168/16, 10/8, 29/8, etc.
Spammers already use unallocated IP's for source addresses, because
it makes them less traceable. How is filtering out traffic from
unallocated addresses different from filtering out addresses known to
send spam? There is significant overlap between them.
I am not qualified except to guess whether the ECPA might apply to
spam filtering when done by other than agents of the sender or receiver.
What are your qualifications for making your authoritative sounding
statement about this U.S. law?
Your misintepretation of my intent?
I'm not a lawyer, and don't play one on TV. Until two lawyers duke
it out in court, to set precedents and interpretations, there is *no*
legal basis for *any* interpretation of the law which relates "spam
filtering" to "interception".
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg