Since this has nothing more to do with qmail, this will be my last public
post on this. I'll reply privately in anything further.
>>>>> "Andre" == Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>>> "John D. Mitchell" writes:
[...]
>> Why on earth would you (or anyone :-) believe that email is private
>> unless you explicitly make it so (by e.g., encrypting it)?
> Because it is supposed to be unless someone makes it public.
Define "supposed to be"? Nothing in the protocols gives a crap about
privacy. If you're sending email across an open network with no real
control over who is going to receive a copy of the message and you *expect*
privacy then you're insane -- of course, nobody (in their right mind :-) is
accusing people/governments/etc. of actually acting rationally or with a
clue. :-)
> And making it public is against the law at least in Europe.
Who said anything about "making it public". "Not public" != "private" in
precisely the case that this qmail user has brought up. He's getting the
bounce messages because that can be helpful in fixing a broken email
system. The fact that he may (inadvertently) read the core content of the
message while reading the bounce message means that the message is no
longer "private" but it's certainly not (yet :-) be made "public".
> For example last month the supreme court of Switzerland has decided that
> emails are covered by the same secrecy of letters as traditional
> snail-mail letters. So the police has to obtain a court order to
> intercept, make copies and look at your emails. The same goes for the EU
> but it's not tested with an supreme court decision anywhere else AFAIK.
Well, to the extent that the law coincides with the reality of how email
actually works that's swell.
Relying on "the law" to protect your privacy is just plain foolishness.
Take care,
John
