ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Violiates US ECPA: Re: Sender identification is not the answer

2004-06-25 08:15:09

Hector,

Hector Santos wrote:

This is not a joke. I am dead serious about this.  I changed the subject
line.

What is quickly becoming a parody is how designs are being discussed;  that
A) are not going to work very well in the first place, b) increase DNS
overhead,  c) increase and promote the network transport payload and d)
violiates and conflicts with US ECPA provisions and yet doesn't even address
the two fundamental mandates of CANSPAM - true sender authentication and
topic identification.

I, as a non-american, find your postings rather difficult to understand.
I learned that you seem to blame someone for violating any laws,
but I can't see what exactly is your point. Could you be
a little bit more verbose and elaborate your statement to give
others - or at least me - a chance to understand what you are
talking about. I'm not familiar with US ECPA, I don't even know what this
is. It would be helpful if you told me what section of that law (I guess it is
a law) you are referring to and why.

If you are talking about what I guess you are talking about, you might
be correct. After all, there is a law in germany too, which prohibits what
I believe you were trying to say. Please accept that it is much more difficult
for me as a foreigner to follow such statements about US law.

Maybe you could provide a link to the text of the law, give a precise
citation of the paragraph or section, and explain, how in detail it is
violated. I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but I didn't get it.
Sorry.

I would also be interested in your claims a,b, and c, escpecially if you
could explain them.

regards
Hadmut