[milters] Archive

Lists Index Date Thread Search

Article: 441
From: Anthony Howe
Date: 2005-04-01 05:10:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Disclaimer Milter

Removal...........: milters-request@milter.info?subject=remove
More information..: http://www.milter.info/#Support
--------------------------------------------------------

Christian 'CBE' Benner wrote:
>>Well then the law outlaws email in general then since every 
>>mail server 
>>the message crosses during transit will modify the message headers by 
>>adding a Received: header and the final destination also adds a 
>>Return-Path: header, which by your outline of the law would make mail 
>>servers, RFC 2821 and 2822 illegal.
> 
> The law only describes that you can't change the body 
> not the headers. You're allowed to mark Headers with a tag like "[SPAM]"
> but not to suppress or reject a message.

Thank goodness for that at least. Means germans can still benefit from 
my existing milters.

>>>We have some "funny" laws here in germany.
>>>You must act against spm but you can't supress
>>>a message with SPAM. It must be passed trough.
>>
>>Now how are you to act against spam if you can't suppress it 
>>or modify 
>>the message in some way to identify it to the end user? Thats like 
>>saying you can have electricity, but your are not allowed to 
>>turn on the 
>>lights. Or an even better analogy would be: you are given 
>>running water, 
>>but you're not allowed to turn off the faucet.
> 
> 
> I'm with you but sending spam is illegal. So (I believe)
> the politicians thinkin' if it is forbidden there's no solution needed
> 'cause there's no reason. In other words you don't need a law which
> allows you tho supress or reject messages which you "can't" receive
> 'cause

That's like saying "speeding is illegal", so we don't need to pass a law 
  allowing police to use speed radar traps, because no one will ever speed.

> they're not allowed. But today I've received a internal paper from EU
> parliament which includes a new sub paragraph which allows also
> supressing
> and rejecting if you're (ISP's) sure that the mail is unwanted by
> receipient.
> (That's in my opinion also stupid 'cause who decides on ISP side which
> mail is wanted or unwanted on reciepients side ?

If there is no margin for error, then such a law doesn't help ISP's at all.

> Sorry for my saying but some politicians don't know what they're talkin'
> about and each solution they're written to stop such 'illegal' spam
> and virusmails within last months is BULLSHIT.

I think they took lessons from the US Congress, as the Can-Spam Act is 
just as useless.

>>>But I hope with next session of politicians 
>>>working on TKG and 823 paragraphs they'll change
>>>it to allow rejecting such messages.
>>
>>Just submit every politician's email address to every 
>>newsgroup you can 
>>find and sooner or later they should see WHY they want to reject such 
>>tripe as spam.
> 
> 
> I can't 'cause it is illegal to send eMail addresses into groups
> or other public spaces. (That's also a stupid law...)

What?!

> Everybody can search by itself for such addresses but it is not allowed
> to catch all well known addresses for making it "public" even if they're
> allready public.... Same as above...BULL...

Why do these laws sound like something out of "Catch 22". Do these laws 
get published with some sort of rationale text that explains their 
perverse logic?

Just makes me think that most governments are spin-offs from the Minstry 
of Funny Walks.

-- 
Anthony C Howe                                 +33 6 11 89 73 78
http://www.snert.com/       ICQ:
7116561         AIM: Sir Wumpus

"held in my arms / his sun washed face / eyes closed" - Anthony

Lists Index Date Thread Search