Re: [swinog] Full unbundling in Switzerland
*sigh* Everybody, please calm down. Ok, all the information on www.parlament.ch is now updated. The final text as approved by the Nationalrat is this: Art. 45a (neu) Massenwerbung 1 Die Anbieterinnen von Fernmeldediensten bekämpfen die nach Artikel 3 Buchstabe o des Bundesgesetzes vom 19. Dezember 19865 gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb unlautere Massenwerbung. 2 Der Bundesrat kann die zur Bekämpfung geeigneten und erforderlichen Massnahmen bestimmen. Which means that the Bundesrat can exactly specify how an ISP has to 'fight' SPAM with regard to incoming (to the ISP) and outgoing (originating from his network) SPAM. If an ISP does not follow the rules then he can be fined up to CHF 100'000 by BAKOM, plus he might lose his telecommunications license. Totally wrong. The idea is that the Bundesrat has the *authority* to specify measures. That's a good thing, since this allows for flexible reaction without requiring law changes. Where it says Bundesrat, you must read Bakom pushing it at the Bundesrat level. Of course it will be necessary and important to get on a table with Bakom to discuss specifics of a corresponding Verordnung. Isn't somebody from Bakom reading this list? All in all this entire thing is not only totally besides the point but also really dangerous. And it reads as if it were the fault of the ISPs that SPAM is around. *sigh* Just reading a single article out of a more complex law does not help really, now does it? Art. 45a explictly /allows/ ISPs to filter spam. Of course, it has not been forbidden until now (since it's perfectly legal to specify such things on a contractual level). Just imagine a customer operating his own mailserver complaining to BAKOM that the ISP doesn't filter SPAM to him... Arg... A majority of the pre-study group of the Nationalrat wanted to add the line if technically feasible, but that was rejected by the full assembly. And rightly it was rejected: Adding such a clause just is fodder for lawyers, since it opens up a whole new area of interpretation. Additionally, there are many steps possible and necessary against spam which are inherently non-technical, but merely organisational or contractual (eg. cutting of a spammer's dialup or booting him off a webhosting machine). The changes to the FMG are overall satisfactory, even when we consider that it won't have a big effect on spammers. At least it is a detriment against the fools who just want to give it a try. -- Matthias -- Brain-Log http://matthias.leisi.net/ ___ swinog mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.init7.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Full unbundling in Switzerland
Hello Andre Andre Oppermann wrote: The only information I was able to get was a snippet of the discussion where they were talking about the 'responsibility' of the ISPs regarding SPAM. Doesn't sound good for us I'm afraid. I guess the ISP will be required to 'block' SPAM for customers. If he doesn't the customer can sue the ISP. How fucked up is that??? That's for sure the wrong way. How can an ISP decide if this mail for the customer is spam or not? The only thing a ISP can do is to provide an (customer tunable) spamfilter. And also most mail clients today can do filtering based on bayesian filters. Each customer gets his personal spam, this can not be 100% filtered at the ISP. See on [1] what we recommand to our customers (users) to keep there spam level low. [1] http://nic.phys.ethz.ch/news/1088679595/ Ok, it is a little bit different at our place, the customers are our co-worker of the Deparment of Physics, and emails taged as spam are not deleted but stored on the mailserver. If a user is missing some emails we are able to search. In an ISP environment it would be the best just to tag the emails and deliver to the customer, and the customer can to the decision what he want to do with his spam. On the Cyrus IMAPD I'm running on the non-profit mail and web server (for friends and family [2]) I do the spamfiltering with SpamAssassin with the report_safe 1 and the default 5.0 points. Sieve can filter mails with X-Spam-Flag: YES and can be deliverd to a subfolder and used with IMAP or webmail, or if they prefer pop3 they can to the filtering in there mail client. At the moment I have implementet SA in the Sendmail Milter with only one global bayesian DB, which is not the best solution but works well with a smaller user base (false positives happen seldom), but will not work in a true ISP environment. [2] http://www.home4u.ch/ I would never sue my ISP for spam, but probably I would sue him for not deliver emails to me which are addressed to me, even if it is (or looked like) spam. For me this approach goes into censorship, even if it is potentially unwanted spam. The Swiss Post is also bound to deliver personal to me addressed snail mail, even if it is a Probexemplar including a invoice for the K-Tipp I never have ordred. bye Fabian ___ swinog mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.init7.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Full unbundling in Switzerland
even better than the spam-discussion is the one about children pornography... Blocher is obviously considering of making the providers responsible for all content which is going through their lines: Blocher Christoph, Bundesrat: Zur Frage der Internetpädophilie möchte ich Folgendes sagen: (...) Es gilt aber, die Entwicklung in diesem Bereich weiter im Auge zu behalten und auch abzuklären, ob diese Revision des Strafgesetzbuches richtig ist oder ob sie verschärft werden müsste. Was die strafrechtliche Verantwortung der Provider betrifft, können vorsätzlich handelnde Autoren, die Hosting-Provider und die reinen Vermittler, für ihre Täterschaft oder Teilnahme an solchen Delikten strafrechtlich erfasst werden, sofern sie - und das ist die Einschränkung - in der Schweiz handeln. Die Rechtspflege kann und soll Provider in solchen Fällen strafrechtlich zur Verantwortung ziehen. Zurzeit wird geprüft, ob angesichts der Komplexität und des Auslandbezuges solcher Fälle die strafrechtliche Verantwortung der Provider neu zu definieren ist.(...) This is kind of wishy-washy, but in my understanding, he wants to punish ISPs if children pornography is downloaded through their lines. On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 18:30:09 +0200 Fabian Wenk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Andre Andre Oppermann wrote: The only information I was able to get was a snippet of the discussion where they were talking about the 'responsibility' of the ISPs regarding SPAM. Doesn't sound good for us I'm afraid. I guess the ISP will be required to'block' SPAM for customers. If he doesn't the customer can sue the ISP. How fucked up is that??? That's for sure the wrong way. How can an ISP decide if this mail for the customer is spam or not? The only thing a ISP can do is to provide an (customer tunable) spamfilter. And also most mail clients today can do filtering based on bayesian filters. Each customer gets his personal spam, this can not be 100% filtered at the ISP. See on [1] what we recommand to our customers (users) to keep there spam level low. [1] http://nic.phys.ethz.ch/news/1088679595/ Ok, it is a little bit different at our place, the customers are our co-worker of the Deparment of Physics, and emails taged as spam are not deleted but stored on the mailserver. If a user is missing some emails we are able to search. In an ISP environment it would be the best just to tag the emails and deliver to the customer, and the customer can to the decision what he want to do with his spam. On the Cyrus IMAPD I'm running on the non-profit mail and web server (for friends and family [2]) I do the spamfiltering with SpamAssassin with the report_safe 1 and the default 5.0 points. Sieve can filter mails with X-Spam-Flag: YES and can be deliverd to a subfolder and used with IMAP or webmail, or if they prefer pop3 they can to the filtering in there mail client. At the moment I have implementet SA in the Sendmail Milter with only one global bayesian DB, which is not the best solution but works well with a smaller user base (false positives happen seldom), but will not work in a true ISP environment. [2] http://www.home4u.ch/ I would never sue my ISP for spam, but probably I would sue him for not deliver emails to me which are addressed to me, even if it is (or looked like) spam. For me this approach goes into censorship, even if it is potentially unwanted spam. The Swiss Post is also bound to deliver personal to me addressed snail mail, even if it is a Probexemplar including a invoice for the K-Tipp I never have ordred. bye Fabian ___ swinog mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.init7.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog -- Remark: Due to security reasons, we are not working with Microsoft-Products but try to convert all documents in a way that you should be able to open them. If you should have difficulties opening our attachements, please report to us what program you use. We then will convert the attachement(s) and resend them to you. ___ swinog mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.init7.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Full unbundling in Switzerland
Fabian Wenk wrote: Hello Andre Andre Oppermann wrote: The only information I was able to get was a snippet of the discussion where they were talking about the 'responsibility' of the ISPs regarding SPAM. Doesn't sound good for us I'm afraid. I guess the ISP will be required to 'block' SPAM for customers. If he doesn't the customer can sue the ISP. How fucked up is that??? That's for sure the wrong way. How can an ISP decide if this mail for the customer is spam or not? Ok, all the information on www.parlament.ch is now updated. The final text as approved by the Nationalrat is this: Art. 45a (neu) Massenwerbung 1 Die Anbieterinnen von Fernmeldediensten bekämpfen die nach Artikel 3 Buchstabe o des Bundesgesetzes vom 19. Dezember 19865 gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb unlautere Massenwerbung. 2 Der Bundesrat kann die zur Bekämpfung geeigneten und erforderlichen Massnahmen bestimmen. Which means that the Bundesrat can exactly specify how an ISP has to 'fight' SPAM with regard to incoming (to the ISP) and outgoing (originating from his network) SPAM. If an ISP does not follow the rules then he can be fined up to CHF 100'000 by BAKOM, plus he might lose his telecommunications license. All in all this entire thing is not only totally besides the point but also really dangerous. And it reads as if it were the fault of the ISPs that SPAM is around. Just imagine a customer operating his own mailserver complaining to BAKOM that the ISP doesn't filter SPAM to him... Arg... A majority of the pre-study group of the Nationalrat wanted to add the line if technically feasible, but that was rejected by the full assembly. I can assure you that there will be large political pressure on the Bundes- rat to quickly specify measures to filter/block/prevent SPAM in the users mailboxes. And we'll have to deal with the weirdest proposals how to achive that. The first Swiss Anti-SPAM standards conference by the Bundes- rat will be a field day for all vendors of 'perfect' and less perfect anti- spam 'solutions'. -- Andre ___ swinog mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.init7.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Full unbundling in Switzerland
Hi Andre, Art. 45a (neu) Massenwerbung 1 Die Anbieterinnen von Fernmeldediensten bekämpfen die nach Artikel 3 Buchstabe o des Bundesgesetzes vom 19. Dezember 19865 gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb unlautere Massenwerbung. 2 Der Bundesrat kann die zur Bekämpfung geeigneten und erforderlichen Massnahmen bestimmen. Which means that the Bundesrat can exactly specify how an ISP has to 'fight' SPAM with regard to incoming (to the ISP) and outgoing (originating from his network) SPAM. If an ISP does not follow the rules then he can be fined up to CHF 100'000 by BAKOM, plus he might lose his telecommunications license. Are we living in a banana republic or in switzerland ? All ideas that come in mind are a big mess and there are also some worst case scenarios. Maybe they are thinking only about SPAM friendly providers. Anyway, I'm really shocked. Maybe we will soon have to buy some very expensive commercial SPAM-Filters which are half effective of what we currently use for free. Martin ___ swinog mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.init7.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Full unbundling in Switzerland
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Andre Oppermann wrote: We get full unbundling in Switzerland and interconnection on leased lines. However bitstream access will only be given for two years. What about the anti-spam part of the proposed changes to the law? Do you know whether this was accepted too? (it should, but you never know when politicians are at work...) - Felix -- Felix Rauch, http://www.nice.ch/~felix/ Member of Swiss Internet User Group (SIUG): http://www.siug.ch/ This article contains my personal view only! Use of my addresses for marketing purposes is hereby strictly prohibited according to swiss privacy laws. ___ swinog mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.init7.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Full unbundling in Switzerland
Felix Rauch wrote: On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Andre Oppermann wrote: We get full unbundling in Switzerland and interconnection on leased lines. However bitstream access will only be given for two years. What about the anti-spam part of the proposed changes to the law? Do you know whether this was accepted too? (it should, but you never know when politicians are at work...) I know they have started discussing it shortly before 11am but the Parlament webserver is down at the moment (along with the rest of admin.ch) so I don't have access to the protocol of the discussion and votings. The only information I was able to get was a snippet of the discussion where they were talking about the 'responsibility' of the ISPs regarding SPAM. Doesn't sound good for us I'm afraid. I guess the ISP will be required to 'block' SPAM for customers. If he doesn't the customer can sue the ISP. How fucked up is that??? Anyway, I'll post more as soon as I get access to the protocols and votings again. -- Andre ___ swinog mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.init7.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
