----- Original Message -----
From: "David Brodbeck" <gull(_at_)gull(_dot_)us>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Reputation Services and HELO/EHLO Checking For
Unified SPF
It's an odd ruling. It apparently hinges on the fact that wiretap law
protects messages that are not being stored -- for example, your phone
company
can't listen in on your phone calls, but voice mail is fair game. The
court
apparently ruled that even if a message is only being held for further
routing, it's being "stored" on that server, and so eavesdropping is
legal.
I believed the distinction is Final Destination vs. Passthru (route to
external domain)
According the report, Amazon sent mail to Interloc user base, hence final
destination. It doesn't matter what really happens internally. Monitoring
final destination is legally acceptable and also has been since 1986 US
ECPA.
What would be interesting is an ISP that host domains. Is that the case
here?
Technically, an ISP is routing to an external domain, and as a passthru,
this would be illegal based on current standards and precedent.
But can he use the argument that the passthru mail is "queued" as a storage
argument?
How would it differ is the hosted domain was paid for? i.e, a PC provided
to the customer but residing at a ISP farm?
Fuzzy! <g>