At 1:46 +0300 6/15/2000, Vadim Vygonets wrote:
>> > 3. It is illegal under German and Dutch law to change the body of
>> > a mail message in transit. It might potentially be illegal in
>> > the UK under European law.
>>
>> Is the message, per that law, "in transit" when it is still bouncing around
>> inside the originating mail system? The law could be clear one way or the
>> other; it might not be.
>
>I think it should be defined as "in transit". The use's MUA has
>sent the message already. Often, the tampering (adding
>disclaimers and such) is done on the mail hub, after it has
>already left the sender's machine. No matter if it's Windoze or
>UNIX. What would you say if the local post office were adding
>disclaimers to your paper mail?
The context here is a company email system. Company owns the MUAs, the
machines they run on, and the MTA and the machine(s) it runs on. I still
question whether the message is "in transit" until it emerges from that
environment. If a pawn (er, employee) objects and the local law doesn't
support the objection, he/she can leave.
In the context of an ISP with public accounts, your post office analogy is
correct. I wasn't speaking about that.
...
>> Alternative (which fails for encrypted mail without provisions for the MTA
>> to decrypt outgoing mail to check):
>>
>> The sender is required to add the disclaimer, via the signature mechanism
>> in the MUA. The MTA refuses to send along messages which don't meet that
>> requirement, bouncing them back to sender and/or sender's boss.
>
>Ah. What about really official messages, like press releases and
>such sent by mail? Official press releases don't represent the
>views of the company, do they?
A different (controlled access) MTA.
And I indeed have seen reports of seemingly-official press releases having
emerged with disclaimers.
--John (no one would want my opinions...I'm stuck with them)
