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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20040304210309.GEB411419.fep03-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com@BillDell> From: full-disclosure at royds.net (Bill Royds) Subject: Email legislation does not exist Interestingly, the regular postal service started as a collection of private couriers carrying mail using private stagecoaches. One great advance of the 19th century was to create the Royal Mail in England which guaranteed delivery to all for a minimal cost. Part of the agreement was the idea that mail had legal status and there was an enforceable contract for delivery. The postage stamp was invented so that the sender would be able to make an easy contract. He had paid for delivery so he should be guaranteed delivery. Perhaps sender-pay is an idea whose time has come on the Internet. -----Original Message----- From: full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com [mailto:full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com] On Behalf Of Thor Larholm Sent: March 4, 2004 2:11 PM To: 'Mike Barushok' Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com; seclegal@...ts.jscript.dk Subject: [Full-Disclosure] Email legislation does not exist > From: Mike Barushok [mailto:mikehome@...sp.net] > Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com > Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] Backdoor not recognized by Kaspersky > > Then there is the 'rejection' problem. If the mail is > not accepted, laws prohibit silently discarding it. I don't mean to be rude, but what laws are you referring to? The internet is a collection of private networks running on private property. What law dictates that I am forced to accept any email, or any single packet of any kind, on my machine? It's an old saying, but it rings true: My network, my machine, my rules. Though perhaps a bit simply put, Doc Searls and David Weinberger highlights this same issue on http://www.worldofends.com/. Do we really want email to be legislated as regular postal services are? If so, should we not then be prohibited to run non-approved email servers? Doesn't the concept of email legislation itself oppose the basic structure of the Internet, by imposing legislation on private property? We legislate other private property such as guns based on their inherent danger, should we assume that machines connected to the Internet are by definition insecure and regulate them? (I have CC'ed the SecLegal mailing list) Regards Thor Larholm Senior Security Researcher PivX Solutions 24 Corporate Plaza #180 Newport Beach, CA 92660 http://www.pivx.com thor@...x.com Phone: +1 (949) 231-8496 PGP: 0x5A276569 6BB1 B77F CB62 0D3D 5A82 C65D E1A4 157C 5A27 6569 PivX defines "Proactive Threat Mitigation". Get a FREE Beta Version of Qwik-Fix <http://www.qwik-fix.net> _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists