Home page logo

fulldisclosure logo Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Email legislation does not exist
From: "Thor Larholm" <thor () pivx com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 11:10:36 -0800

From: Mike Barushok [mailto:mikehome () kcisp net] 
Cc: full-disclosure () lists netsys com
Subject: RE: [Full-disclosure] Backdoor not recognized by Kaspersky

Then there is the 'rejection' problem. If the mail is 
not accepted, laws prohibit silently discarding it. 

I don't mean to be rude, but what laws are you referring to?

The internet is a collection of private networks running on private
property. What law dictates that I am forced to accept any email, or any
single packet of any kind, on my machine?

It's an old saying, but it rings true: My network, my machine, my rules.

Though perhaps a bit simply put, Doc Searls and David Weinberger
highlights this same issue on http://www.worldofends.com/.

Do we really want email to be legislated as regular postal services are?

If so, should we not then be prohibited to run non-approved email
Doesn't the concept of email legislation itself oppose the basic
structure of the Internet, by imposing legislation on private property? 
We legislate other private property such as guns based on their inherent
danger, should we assume that machines connected to the Internet are by
definition insecure and regulate them?

(I have CC'ed the SecLegal mailing list)


Thor Larholm
Senior Security Researcher
PivX Solutions
24 Corporate Plaza #180
Newport Beach, CA 92660
thor () pivx com
Phone: +1 (949) 231-8496
PGP: 0x5A276569
6BB1 B77F CB62 0D3D 5A82 C65D E1A4 157C 5A27 6569

PivX defines "Proactive Threat Mitigation". Get a FREE Beta Version of

Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]