----- Original Message -----
From: "Meng Weng Wong" <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 1:52 AM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Reputation Services and HELO/EHLO Checking For
Unified SPF
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 05:49:10PM -0400, David Brodbeck wrote:
|
| 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.
|
What a bogus ruling. For all intents and purposes a message
is in transport until it arrives at the recipient's mailbox.
Whether it's on a spinning disk or in a RAM buffer or on a
wire shouldn't make any difference.
It all depends Meng.
A good example is whether the ISP offered both a POP3 and WEBMAIL access.
If so, I would consider this final destination storage.
To make the internet consistent with the online hosting world where much of
the basis for the molding of the 1986 US ECPA laws started, the final
destination woud be the domain that own the address.
So if amazon was sending to user(_at_)interloc(_dot_)com, then I think this
the only
way I can see this ruling make sense according to current standard and
practice.
On the other hand, if interloc.com was just an ISP hosting other domains,
that would be the interesting question and I think it would depend if the
customer was paying for the PC. I guess it all depends on what is the ISP
hosting contract and policy issued for hosting a domain plus hardware.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com