full-disclosure - a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam!

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <200311121809.hACI955g008187@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu)
Subject: a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam! 

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 23:32:22 PST, "Gregory A. Gilliss" <ggilliss@...publishing.com>  said:

> BTW, which ISP was that who decided to filter your mail - that's got to 
> be a violation of their agreement, let alone a Federal offense. 

That will depend on the Terms of Service that the recipient agreed to
with the ISP.  If the ISP reserved the right to filter mail, or similar
terms, and the user agreed to it, it's not a violation of the ToS.
(You *did* read the ToS when you signed it, right? ;)

Regarding "a Federal offense" - probably not.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch119.html

18 USC 2511 (2)(a)(i):

It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator of a switchboard,
or an officer, employee, or 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 while engaged in any activity which is a
necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the
rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of
wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or
random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.

"protection of the rights or property of the provider" - basically means
that the ISP has the right to intercept and block spam if it's needed
to protect the ISP's servers from overload.

If anybody wants to cite contraditory case or statute law, feel free.
I'd not be surprised if there's something overriding this in the US Code
or CFR's.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20031112/c75a6187/attachment.bin