Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission...

Owen DeLong owen at
Wed Dec 3 17:51:14 UTC 2014

There’s a big difference between illegal and civil liability for breech of contract.

If I am paying someone for access to the internet, then I expect them not to modify, alter, rewrite, or otherwise interfere with my packets.

If they do so, they may not have violated 47 USC 230, but they have certainly failed to provide the service that I am paying for.


> On Nov 29, 2014, at 12:17 PM, John Levine <johnl at> 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.

More information about the NANOG mailing list