On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Mike S wrote: > At 09:58 PM 1/12/2004, Dean Anderson wrote... > >On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Mike S wrote: > >1) privacy - routing via my ISP's outbound SMTP gives them > >> the right to intercept and read my email, according the ECPA; > > > >Err, Just the opposite is more freqently the case.The ECPA > >specifically prohibits the ISP from exceeding its limited authority. > > Cite, please. I've got one: > > "(2)(a)(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an ... > agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose > facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic > communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in > the normal course of his employment..." "Normal course of employment" is the operative phrase. Exceeding authorization is not part of the normal course of employment. The section you quote also goes on to prohibit service monitoring except for random quality control checks. Reading email in excess of the limited authorization to block spam isn't a quality control check, either. Also, the section you quote is the wiretap act, which covers communications on the wire. The ECPA extends this and provides coverage of stored and temporarilly stored communications, ie, when they are on a mail server or in the memory of a router or server. > >2) control - sending from my own system allows me to control retry > >> attempts and times, instead of being forced to wait 4 days for my ISP > >> to bounce an undelivered back to me, assuming they don't just silently > >> lose it. > > > >If your contract allows you to run your own system, then the ISP would not > >be allowed to prevent you from doing that. This could be made into an > >ECPA issue---some people think it is merely and only a contract > >non-performance issue and said contract excludes liability for failure to > >perform. Like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the ECPA is a criminal statute > >with civil actions permitted, and carries its own civil and criminal > >penalties. > > My ISP's support of the MAPS DUL, and the use of the MAPS system by > others, is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030. Email me for details, but > I've covered this on this list recently. I missed your statements on this, but I'll look back in the archives. MAPS has been successfully sued for anti-trust violations in Exactis V MAPS. That case was settled after the MAPS defense (First Amendment) was rejected, and its attorney's chastised. Reportedly, MAPS agreed never to block Exactis, and agreed to specific monetary damages if it did. Exactis continued to do what it was doing, single opt-out advertising. > >Of course, if your contract does not allow you to run your own system, > >then you don't have a complaint about blacklists blocking it. > > There is nothing to prohibit direct routing of email. Point taken. Some mail clients route directly. But they probably shouldn't do that for other reasons having to do with lack of information about mail routing. But, I suppose one can say they are allowed to anyway. --Dean