[176522] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Transparent hijacking of SMTP submission...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Dec 3 12:54:01 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141129201745.30066.qmail@ary.lan>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 09:51:14 -0800
To: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
There=E2=80=99s 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.
Owen
> On Nov 29, 2014, at 12:17 PM, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>=20
>> i think of it as an intentional traffic hijack. i would be talking =
to a
>> lawyer.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Filtering STARTTLS on port 587 is pretty stupid, but not everything
> that's stupid is illegal.
>=20
> R's,
> John
>=20
> 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.
