ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs

Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Mon Jun 30 16:54:40 UTC 2008

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:55:53 EDT, "Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET" said:

> 220 Sending HELO/EHLO constitutes acceptance of this agreement

Even in a UCITA state that has onerous rules regarding shrink-wrapped EULA
terms, I think you'd have a very hard time getting a court to enforce an
alleged contract based on this.  And it's different from the usual suggestion
to put "all activity may be monitored" in your telnet/ssh login banners, because
there's an expectation that the human will look at a login banner when they
login, but there's no expectation that an SMTP server will look at the 220
banner any further than checking the first digit is a '2' (go read the section
on SMTP reply codes in RFC2821).

Feel free to cite any relevant case law (in fact, even the case law on
login banners read by humans is a tad skimpy - in most cases, it does nothing
for intruders, but it protects you from your own users complaining their
privacy was violated)...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20080630/f5ec6bd5/attachment.sig>

More information about the NANOG mailing list