1993-10-04 - Re: FIDOnet encryption (or lack thereof)

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <pmetzger@lehman.com>
To: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>
Message Hash: 49143b9184702f90b00518f54b01f7d467b29930bfd5f2b936fe780a2a8f5127
Message ID: <9310040250.AA27817@snark.lehman.com>
Reply To: <199310040022.AA06627@eff.org>
UTC Datetime: 1993-10-04 02:54:43 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 3 Oct 93 19:54:43 PDT

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 93 19:54:43 PDT
To: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>
Subject: Re: FIDOnet encryption (or lack thereof)
In-Reply-To: <199310040022.AA06627@eff.org>
Message-ID: <9310040250.AA27817@snark.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Mike Godwin says:
>  
> Jim writes:
> 
> > FidoNet policy has a statement allowing monitoring of all intransit
> > mail.  I guess I'm going to have to dig my copy of Policy out of the
> > archives to post the relevant paragraphs.
> >  Jim Cannell      Internet: Jim.Cannell@f21.n216.z1.fidonet.org
> If all users of FidoNet systems read this and agree with it prior to using
> mail, then there's probably not an ECPA problem.

Mike;

Wouldn't users outside of Fidonet sending mail to Fidonet users also
have to agree to the terms, or is it sufficient for all Fidonet users
to have agreed?

Perry





Thread