ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx

2004-01-14 09:41:43
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Mike S wrote:

At 09:58 PM 1/12/2004, Dean Anderson wrote...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Mike S wrote:
1) privacy - routing via my ISP's outbound SMTP gives them
the right to intercept and read my email, according the ECPA;


Err, Just the opposite is more freqently the case.The ECPA
specifically prohibits the ISP from exceeding its limited authority.

Cite, please. I've got one:

"(2)(a)(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an ...
agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose
facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic
communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in
the normal course of his employment..."

"Normal course of employment" is the operative phrase. Exceeding
authorization is not part of the normal course of employment.  The section
you quote also goes on to prohibit service monitoring except for random
quality control checks. Reading email in excess of the limited
authorization to block spam isn't a quality control check, either.

Also, the section you quote is the wiretap act, which covers
communications on the wire. The ECPA extends this and provides coverage of
stored and temporarilly stored communications, ie, when they are on a mail
server or in the memory of a router or server.

2) control - sending from my own system allows me to control retry
attempts and times, instead of being forced to wait 4 days for my ISP
to bounce an undelivered back to me, assuming they don't just silently
lose it.

If your contract allows you to run your own system, then the ISP would not
be allowed to prevent you from doing that.  This could be made into an
ECPA issue---some people think it is merely and only a contract
non-performance issue and said contract excludes liability for failure to
perform.  Like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the ECPA is a criminal statute
with civil actions permitted, and carries its own civil and criminal
penalties.

My ISP's support of the MAPS DUL, and the use of the MAPS system by
others, is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030. Email me for details, but
I've covered this on this list recently.

I missed your statements on this, but I'll look back in the archives.
MAPS has been successfully sued for anti-trust violations in Exactis V
MAPS.  That case was settled after the MAPS defense (First Amendment) was
rejected, and its attorney's chastised. Reportedly, MAPS agreed never to
block Exactis, and agreed to specific monetary damages if it did.  Exactis
continued to do what it was doing, single opt-out advertising.

Of course, if your contract does not allow you to run your own system,
then you don't have a complaint about blacklists blocking it.

There is nothing to prohibit direct routing of email.

Point taken.  Some mail clients route directly. But they probably
shouldn't do that for other reasons having to do with lack of information
about mail routing.  But, I suppose one can say they are allowed to
anyway.

                --Dean





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>