spam whore,

Dean Anderson dean at
Wed Feb 3 20:25:46 UTC 1999

At 03:01 PM 2/3/1999 -0500, Ravi Pina wrote:
>Yes, I would have to agree with you here and was going to say nearly the
>exact same thing.  I wonder if his slanderous attacks to Verio are equally
>illegal as the case he's trying to make.

To be slanderous, it has to be false.

o  You say that you can do anything you want. That no laws apply to you.
Including privacy laws.

o  You monitored protected communications to obtain private information
(the number of smtp packets sent by Norcal), and then published that

o  You haven't said it was a mistake. Just the opposite.

So how is this false?

> Unless of course the publicity is that Verio can't be trusted to keep
> private information private.  Or that the publicity is that Verio thinks it
> can use any  private information that passes through it to its own ends. 

This looks like established fact.

How many of OUR customers really want you to do that?

How many of OUR customers really want you to think you can do anything you
want, and that no laws apply to you regarding THEIR communications?

I know MY customers don't want YOU to look at THEIR communications. Even if
they aren't encrypted.


           Plain Aviation, Inc                  dean at

More information about the NANOG mailing list