Here is the difference... 
The US Postal Service is a government agency "owned by the people",
hence, "interfering" with regular mail is bad.. 
email runs over corporate networks and uses private resources, none
"owned" by the "people"...  hence a corporation, ISP, can certainly
decide what it allows into its network to use its resources... if you,
as a customer, have a problem with that, exert pressure on them.. if
enough customers bitch, they will change policy... 
as far as suing, I am sure someone will figure out a way to do it and
win... doesnt mean they should... 

shawn

On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 17:02, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> No.  The automated systems to filtre spam and virii better 
> be *really* careful about what they block.  
> 
> If you block or subvert discrete communications between humans then 
> you are asking for real trouble.  That's all.
> 
> Dhu
> 
> On 28 Dec 2002 17:00:54 -0500
> Shawn Duffy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > So we should let the govt open all unopened mail to make sure nothing is
> > illegal in it? and then leave it up to them to determine if it was
> > intentional?
> >  
> > please...
> > 
> > On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 16:51, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> > > The law would have to consider intention of the sender:
> > > 
> > > Virii are (generally) not intended by the sender, except
> > > for the original author.  If I didn't intend to send the
> > > virus, there is no constraint on you scanning and chopping
> > > it.  As for porn, if you are a minor, then by sending it
> > > to you I have probably committed a criminal offense, regardless
> > > of the vehicle employed.
> > > 
> > > Dhu
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:41:46 -0500 (EST)
> > > Chris Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > So theoretically scanning email attatchments for viruses is illeagal too?
> > > > and the same goes for filtering out porn?
> > > > -chris
> > > > 
> > > > On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Seems to me that this is an invitation to government
> > > > > regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal
> > > > > offense for good reason.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dhu
> > > > >
> > > > > On 28 Dec 2002 15:46:10 -0500
> > > > > Shawn Duffy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The lists are usually kept on the websites of whatever particular
> > > > > > organizations are doing it... they are quite a few...
> > > > > > As far as suing them, I would venture to say no... If you dont want
> > > > > > someone to be able to connect to your mail server that is certainly
> > > > > > within your right to do... and if other people want to agree with you,
> > > > > > well then, what can you do... although I am sure someone somewhere will
> > > > > > probably sue over it and win...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > shawn
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 15:32, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> > > > > > > How do you find if you are on the list?  And who has the list?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can they be sued?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Duncan (Dhu) Campbell
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:45:23 -0500
> > > > > > > Harry Tabak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's 
>spam
> > > > > > > > filter, I've had to send this from another account]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >         I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the 
>cross
> > > > > > > > posting.  I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security issues --
> > > > > > > > the 'Availability' part of C-I-A. I apologize if I am wrong.  A FreeBSD
> > > > > > > > ported package is contributing to an internet service availability
> > > > > > > > problem that has me stumped.  I believe that an unknowable quantity of
> > > > > > > > other internet denizens are also affected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >         I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail 
>server and
> > > > > > > > I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I
> > > > > > > > write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of
> > > > > > > > strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software
> > > > > > > > that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!!  And not 
>to
> > > > > > > > my face, but to business associate. And then took action.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >         I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD 
>ported
> > > > > > > > package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail from me
> > > > > > > > to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the internet. 
>I'll
> > > > > > > > probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a
> > > > > > > > freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't
> > > > > > > > be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly 
>suggest
> > > > > > > > that you check it out.]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >         Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security 
>arsenal.  But,
> > > > > > > > IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules
> > > > > > > > that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad
> > > > > > > > anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site.  However, spambnc's
> > > > > > > > bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD,
> > > > > > > > and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us.  Until it is
> > > > > > > > fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this 
>product.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >         Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail 
>aren't fully
> > > > > > > > described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the
> > > > > > > > inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this
> > > > > > > > product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I
> > > > > > > > am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions,
> > > > > > > > but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good 
>people.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >         The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. 
>Even
> > > > > > > > though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard codes  its
> > > > > > > > rules for filtering bad domains by name and by IP address. My nemisis 
>is
> > > > > > > > buried in a 1476 line file, sb-blockdomains.rc, which installs by
> > > > > > > > default, and is not documented outside the code. Along with others, it
> > > > > > > > blocks the entire 66.45.0.0/17 space because spammers might live there.
> > > > > > > > This is sort of like a corporate mail room throwing away all NJ
> > > > > > > > postmarked mail because of the bulk mail distribution centers in 
>Secaucus.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >         My mail host address gets a clean bill of health from every 
>anti-spam
> > > > > > > > site that I can find, such as SPEWS. I've checked at least 30 of them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >         My tiny x/29 block is sub-allocated from my DSL provider's 
>x/23 block.
> > > > > > > >     The DSL provider's block is a sub-allocation from Inflow.com's
> > > > > > > > 66.45.0.0/17 block. Spambouncer doesn't like Inflow.  While they have a
> > > > > > > > right to their opinions, they don't have a right to publicly tar me
> > > > > > > > because of my neighbors.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >         If I read sb-blockdomains # comments correctly, it is policy 
>to not
> > > > > > > > only block known spammers, but to ALSO block entire networks based on
> > > > > > > > their handling of spam complaints. This is like as a business
> > > > > > > > receptionist checking callerID and then ignoring incoming calls from
> > > > > > > > Verizon subscribers because Verizon tolerates (and probably invented)
> > > > > > > > telemarketing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >         I have written to both the Spambouncer contact address
> > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and the FreeBSD maintainer, but without a
> > > > > > > > response.  Possibly they are on holiday, or spambouncer is eating my
> > > > > > > > mail. Perhaps I'm just too impatient.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >         I have also contacted my ISP's support.  They don't know how 
>to help
> > > > > > > > me. They vouch for Inflow. They don't recommend it, but for a fee, my
> > > > > > > > service could be switched to a different PVC, and I'd get an address
> > > > > > > > from a different carrier. But of course, the new address could be
> > > > > > > > black-listed on a whim.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >         Regardless, I assume that these are reasonable people, and 
>that they
> > > > > > > > will oil the squeaky wheel as soon as it is convenient.  But how will I
> > > > > > > > ever know that EVERY copy of spambouncer has been fixed? What about
> > > > > > > > other innocent ISP subscribers who are also black-listed?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Harry Tabak
> > > > > > > > QUAD TELECOM, INC.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > email: pakkit at codepiranha dot org
> > > > > > web: http://codepiranha.org/~pakkit
> > > > > > pgp: 8988 6FB6 3CFE FE6D 548E  98FB CCE9 6CA9 98FC 665A
> > > > > > having problems reading email from me? 
>http://codepiranha.org/~pakkit/pgp-trouble.html
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > -- 
> > email: pakkit at codepiranha dot org
> > web: http://codepiranha.org/~pakkit
> > pgp: 8988 6FB6 3CFE FE6D 548E  98FB CCE9 6CA9 98FC 665A
> > having problems reading email from me? 
>http://codepiranha.org/~pakkit/pgp-trouble.html
> > 
-- 
email: pakkit at codepiranha dot org
web: http://codepiranha.org/~pakkit
pgp: 8988 6FB6 3CFE FE6D 548E  98FB CCE9 6CA9 98FC 665A
having problems reading email from me? http://codepiranha.org/~pakkit/pgp-trouble.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to