[105737] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Mon Jun 30 13:05:59 2008
To: "Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET" <ml@t-b-o-h.net>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:55:53 EDT."
<200806292155.m5TLtrnE062355@himinbjorg.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:54:40 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1214844880_3005P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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)...
--==_Exmh_1214844880_3005P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFIaQ/QcC3lWbTT17ARAt78AKCM41dn+xbzvzIXhtI1MN9CXn+faACgyFfD
kBxWXdqQknDlAwEM1raQqsY=
=U0ez
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1214844880_3005P--
