"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

I told you befo it's a criminal act to interfere with
e-communications without the consent of both the recipient and the
sender.

Then my ISP is a criminal. He is interfering with the spam which is
intended for me. I asked him to do so, but I am as certain as I can be
that
he did not ask the spammers for their permission to interfere on my
behalf.
He has succeeded in reducing the spam I receive in my inbox to between 1
and
2% of what it used to be. He has also succeded in removing Swen-like
attacks to zero.

Swen is different: you don't have to open the interpersonal
correspondence to kill it.

Intercepting and scanning personal mail is a criminal offence unless the
recipient is your employee and usimg your system to receive his/her
mail.

This was enacted before spam became a real problem, but the law applies
in principle.

It would be up to the DPP to initiate proceedings on a complaint.
Probably, with regard to spam, in the admittedly unlikely event of it
going to court the beaks would find in favour of your ISP.

Ah, I am so glad my ISP would not be sent to jail.
In the meantime, he is quite actively and successfully interfering with my
incoming mail without the consent of the senders.
He has reduced my spam from around 150 a day to around 2 or 3.

I have checked the first 1000 or so of the intercepted mail, and have not
found a solitary item which was wrongly intercepted. From now on I will
just delete it all daily in one fell swoop without looking.

Just the legal costs of defending such an action could bankrupt some (if
not all) small ISPs though, which is why Zetnet for one wrote a killfile
into its software, but won't intercept it on the server.

And who on earth is going to do the suing or prosecuting? Which masochist
wants to make a laughing stock of him/herself?

Franz

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

My mistake. I was thinking of both virii and spammed email.

pedant

Virus is a collective noun.

One solitary influenza virus may be inspected under the electron
microscope.microscope.
Granted, I don't know whether an influenza and a legionnaire'd disease virus
lying side by side should be referred to as a pair of viruses or a pair of
virii. (On the assumption that the legionnaire's disease thingy is indeed a
virus at all)

/pedant

Franz

In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

My mistake. I was thinking of both virii and spammed email.

pedant

Virus is a collective noun.

One solitary influenza virus may be inspected under the electron
microscope.microscope.
Granted, I don't know whether an influenza and a legionnaire'd disease virus
lying side by side should be referred to as a pair of viruses or a pair of
virii. (On the assumption that the legionnaire's disease thingy is indeed a
virus at all)

It wouldn't be virii anyway, would it? That'd be the plural of virius.

--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:45:06 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

Just the legal costs of defending such an action could bankrupt some (if
not all) small ISPs though, which is why Zetnet for one wrote a killfile
into its software, but won't intercept it on the server.

And who on earth is going to do the suing or prosecuting? Which masochist
wants to make a laughing stock of him/herself?

a very Rusty Lawyer? :-)
--
Martin

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:30:01 +0000, Kay Easton
wrote:

In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

My mistake. I was thinking of both virii and spammed email.

pedant

Virus is a collective noun.

One solitary influenza virus may be inspected under the electron
microscope.microscope.
Granted, I don't know whether an influenza and a legionnaire'd disease virus
lying side by side should be referred to as a pair of viruses or a pair of
virii. (On the assumption that the legionnaire's disease thingy is indeed a
virus at all)

It wouldn't be virii anyway, would it? That'd be the plural of virius.

Thanks for helping me to discover that an OED CD made for Win95 won't
run with WinXP :-(((

--
Martin

The message
from martin contains these words:

And I said that I wasn't arguing with you, I was telling you. Zetnet
took legal advice.

You omitted to say what they were told.

Neither did I say which firm of solicitors Zetnet uses, or when they
were asked or - how much more data would you like?

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from martin contains these words:

No. You suggested that. I never said anything about identification.

You said very clearly that an ISP was breaking the law by even looking
at the mail. How can he identify it without even looking at it?

I can tell just from the headers and senders.....

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from martin contains these words:

checking for an exclamation mark in the subject is good for about 40%

Unfortunately it is likely to catch say, a joke forwarded from a
newsgroup, or genuine e-mails. I did KF !!! and caught something I had
to fish out of packetsave.

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:
"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

My mistake. I was thinking of both virii and spammed email.

pedant

Virus is a collective noun.

One solitary influenza virus may be inspected under the electron
microscope.microscope.
Granted, I don't know whether an influenza and a legionnaire'd disease virus
lying side by side should be referred to as a pair of viruses or a pair of
virii. (On the assumption that the legionnaire's disease thingy is indeed a
virus at all)

/pedant

Virus means dirt, filth.

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from Kay Easton contains these words:

It wouldn't be virii anyway, would it? That'd be the plural of virius.

4th declension noun would be virii. I can't remember what viri
translates as (and I've lost my huge Latin dictionary) but it isn't the
plural of virus.

I *COULD* bother one of Zetnet's directors and ask him for a(nother)
full explanation, but he's rather busy ATM with a (presumably)
intermittent fault on one of the servers.

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

/snip/

Just the legal costs of defending such an action could bankrupt some (if
not all) small ISPs though, which is why Zetnet for one wrote a killfile
into its software, but won't intercept it on the server.

And who on earth is going to do the suing or prosecuting? Which masochist
wants to make a laughing stock of him/herself?

It only needs a disaffected spammer to report that mail is being deleted
by a named ISP, and the police *MUST* investigate. How thoroughly they
do so is another matter. Remember, this is a criminal matter, not a
civil one.

Then, if the police do investigate, and are of the opinion that there is
a pima facie case, they must pass the matter to the DPP.

The spammer becomes irrelevant. (Or a hippopotamus)

HTH

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

/snip/

Just the legal costs of defending such an action could bankrupt some
(if
not all) small ISPs though, which is why Zetnet for one wrote a
killfile
into its software, but won't intercept it on the server.

And who on earth is going to do the suing or prosecuting? Which
masochist
wants to make a laughing stock of him/herself?

It only needs a disaffected spammer to report that mail is being deleted
by a named ISP, and the police *MUST* investigate. How thoroughly they
do so is another matter. Remember, this is a criminal matter, not a
civil one.

Then, if the police do investigate, and are of the opinion that there is
a pima facie case, they must pass the matter to the DPP.

The spammer becomes irrelevant. (Or a hippopotamus)


And the whole exercise ends up by being a big footshooting. Soon after the
first case of this kind comes to court, there will be anti-spamming
legislation. Then the spammer has really become irrelevant.

Franz

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:04:41 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from martin contains these words:

And I said that I wasn't arguing with you, I was telling you. Zetnet
took legal advice.

You omitted to say what they were told.

Neither did I say which firm of solicitors Zetnet uses, or when they
were asked or - how much more data would you like?

Enough to make your claim plausible.

BTW I was wrong Zetnet don't offer a spam tagging service, yet. So not
the best ISP in UK after all?
--
Martin

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:04:54 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from martin contains these words:

No. You suggested that. I never said anything about identification.

You said very clearly that an ISP was breaking the law by even looking
at the mail. How can he identify it without even looking at it?

I can tell just from the headers and senders.....

I think I told you that 4 weeks ago. I even provided you with
examples.
Incidentally to get spam that slipped through down to 2 or 3 messages
a week it took more than 300 filters with Lotus Notes and I had to
regularly add new filters.
--
Martin

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:04:59 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from martin contains these words:

checking for an exclamation mark in the subject is good for about 40%

Unfortunately it is likely to catch say, a joke forwarded from a
newsgroup, or genuine e-mails. I did KF !!! and caught something I had
to fish out of packetsave.

It's the reason I filter Spam tagged messages into a dedicated folder.
So far at home I have not had any spuriously tagged Spam messages.
Like Franz I am considering deleting them without first putting them
in a folder.
--
Martin