nanog mailing list archives
Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission...
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 15:45:06 -0500
The STARTTLS filter was merely a tool used to divert and tap the traffic. It is the latter which is over the line. randy, on a teensy non-computer On Nov 29, 2014, at 15:17, John Levine <johnl () iecc com> wrote:
i think of it as an intentional traffic hijack. i would be talking to a lawyer.If the lawyer says anything other than that 47 USC 230(c)(2)(A) provides broad immunity for ISP content filtering, even if the filters sometimes screw up, you need a new lawyer. Filtering STARTTLS on port 587 is pretty stupid, but not everything that's stupid is illegal. R's, John PS: I know enough technical people at Comcast that I would be extremely surprised if it were Comcast doing this. There's plenty not to like about the corporation, but the technical staff are quite competent.
Current thread:
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission..., (continued)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Randy Bush (Nov 29)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Sander Steffann (Nov 29)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Jean-Francois Mezei (Nov 29)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Christopher Morrow (Nov 29)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... John Levine (Nov 29)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Christopher Morrow (Nov 29)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... joel jaeggli (Nov 29)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Christopher Morrow (Nov 29)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... William Herrin (Nov 30)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Sander Steffann (Nov 29)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Randy Bush (Nov 29)
- Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission... Randy Bush (Nov 29)