Black Hole Vixie/RBL

Tue Dec 1 17:18:51 UTC 1998

At 13:06 11/30/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>BBBZZZTTT yourself. Blocking email is an interception under the ECPA (18
>USC 2511 et al).  It has been reported here previously that 

*Sigh*...again with the misquoting of the law.  First READ the law in
question, then supply a Court opinion that blocking is interception (since
it's the courts that interpret the law) if you still disagree. 

"18 USC 2510 'Definitions', (4) ''intercept'' means the aural or other
acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication
through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device."

Since the receiving ISP very specifically is NOT acquiring the email, it is
rejecting it...it never hits their servers...it does not meet the
definition of "intercept".  The wiretapping law has only been "reported
here previously" by spammers and those supporting spammers who are
misquoting it to support their [specious] arguments.

Furthermore:

18 USC 2701, 'Unlawful access to stored communications':

"(a) Offense. - Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section whoever -

(1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which
an electronic communication service is provided; or

(2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility;
and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or
electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section."

"(c) Exceptions. - Subsection (a) of this section does not apply with
respect to conduct authorized -

(1) by the person or entity providing a wire or electronic communications
service;

(2) by a user of that service with respect to a communication of or
intended for that user; or..."

This law clearly provides that an ISP (provider of an "electronic
communications service") can block email {"authorized access to a wire or
electronic communication") if they so choose.

It can therefore be concluded that your argument falls flat because
blocking the delivery of email does not meet the definition of "intercept"
and because Sec. 2701 specifically allows ISPs to prevent access to email.

Sooooo.....BBBZZZZZZTTTT! BBBBZZZZZTTT!  Go try filing a federal lawsuit
over it (since you think the law is so clearly on your side), and try not
to get laughed at tooo much.

>1)  The ECPA was amended to apply to email.

No, it was amended to apply to "electronic communications", of which email
is a subset.  See
http://law2.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+1004+2++%
27Electronic%2 "Amendments" section.

>2)  A US attorney has stated that ISP's who define their service to include
>mail filtering for their customers implicitly have their customers
>permission to do so, as required under the ECPA.  

a.  Name the attorney and provide the full citation, please.  Hearsay not
admissable argumentia.

b.  The alleged US Attorney needs to read Title 18, Chapter 119 and 121.

c.  US Attorneys only *think* they're God...their words are not gospel, nor
are they always correct. 

>
>Those who don't have permission would be in violation of the ECPA were they
>to block email.

What specific part of the ECPA?  Again, back to hearsay argument without
supporting documentation.  In no part of the entire Chapter 119 is blocking
mentioned, nor permission (save judicial permission for a law enforcement
interception).  

>
>You, as usual, are unequivocalably wrong.
>
>Perhaps you also can quit wasting our bandwidth.

This is why I very rarely reply to your posts.  You simply cannot avoid
making ad hominem, personal attacks.  Perhaps you also can quit wasting our
air.

Spammers should be investigated by Ken Starr!

Dean Robb
PC-EASY computer services
(757) 495-EASY [3279]