* Steve <steeeeev...@gmx.net>: > > * Steve <steeeeev...@gmx.net>: > > > > I'm no expert on German law, but I do know that there are other > > > > German system administrators who are not running amavisd in pre-queue > > > > mode, so I wonder if perhaps someone has given you an overzealous > > > > interpretation of the law. > > > > > > > I think that the original sender knows about the law. I am not a German > > but > > > I think that the German law says that you ARE ALLOWED to drop any > > message as > > > long as you don't have accepted the message. So having amavisd running > > in > > > > For the books: Currently lawyers in Germany disagree on WHEN a message has > > been accepted - when you accept the connection or at the end of DATA when > > the server says "OK". > > > Hey! I am Swiss and looking what is happening over in Germany in some area > just makes me shake my head. But who am I? I don't get it and probably will > never get some of those "strange" laws.
This is just how Justizia works. New topics (and Internet law still is new ) initially produce different opinions on something. Over time a clear position emerges. Joerg Heidrich, corporate counsel at the Heise Verlag (www.heise.de, c't Magazine, iX etc.), pointed these two positions out at the Heise Network and E-Mail Conferences held at various locations in Germany this year. His explanations indicated that "if judges would ask mail professionals how email works, they will probably go for version b - the end of DATA stage". So it's not all lost. As I understood it, it will _just_ take another two or three cases and lawyers will settle on "the right thing". > > > pre-queue allows you to DROP the message and just send a normal SMTP > > error > > > code. That is allowed by law. > > > > This is what most of the German laywers seem to agree on, yes. > > > > > > > But you are NOT ALLOWED to accept the mail and then later doing some > > > processing where you ERASE/DROP/WHATEVER the mail. This is not allowed > > by > > > law. So you accept the mail -> you have to deliver the mail. > > > > Unless the message proves to be harmful... > > > Do the German layers and the German law agree on the definition of > "harmful"? I would be surprised if so. They seem to do. But they point out that a policy that drops "harmful" mail must also respect the different parties interests - the companies and the recipients. A company must not drop a message if the recipient wants it unless it is harmful. They must not inspect the message unless the recipient permits them or the company risks to break the recipients right for "informational privacy" (There's no english term for that). This right gives individuals the control over who gets access to personal data. In case of mail it boils down to "you are not allowed to read my mail unless I have permitted you to as you might invade my privacy." That's why companies tend forbid their staff to send and receive private mail. If someone needs to access a colleagues mailbox, say because he's ill and they need to read a message that was sent to that persons mailbox, they would not be allowed to do so unless the mailbox is "company mails only". Using a machine (virus scanner etc.) to inspect messages doesn't seem to invade the privacy. Lawyers seem to agree on that. Having an admin reading the message, when it has been sent to quarantine, does break the law unless he has been authorized either by the recipient or a party that represents the recipients interests e.g. a workers' representative. > > > That's probably the reason he wants to run amavisd in pre-queue because > > this > > > would allow him to fight spam/malware and block spam/malware and drop > > > spam/malware without having to accept the mail. > > > > Usually one would want to drop unwanted messages as early as possible so > > they > > don't waste ressources by later inspections. > > > Yes. But if this means that running in such a way that this early dropping > of unwanted messages results in more resources used compared to running in > the "early mode", then I really don't see the point in this "early > dropping". I don't agree with you that dropping early is equal in less > resources used then dropping later. It depends. To be sure one needs to measure. Most people don't and most people get away with it, because they have choosen a strategy that simply works for them. To be sure one needs to measure and compare and then go for what works best. p...@rick -- The Book of Postfix <http://www.postfix-book.com> saslfinger (debugging SMTP AUTH): <http://postfix.state-of-mind.de/patrick.koetter/saslfinger/> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ _______________________________________________ AMaViS-user mailing list AMaViS-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amavis-user AMaViS-FAQ:http://www.amavis.org/amavis-faq.php3 AMaViS-HowTos:http://www.amavis.org/howto/
