1994-08-11 - Re: Are Remailers Liable for What They Remail?

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>
To: Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>
Message Hash: 651475378d803ba86c163d0cd2091b58d1dbf1c46964fd1291d55b49a84d9004
Message ID: <9408111629.AA29020@snark.imsi.com>
Reply To: <199408111448.HAA17336@jobe.shell.portal.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-08-11 16:29:46 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 11 Aug 94 09:29:46 PDT

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 94 09:29:46 PDT
To: Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>
Subject: Re: Are Remailers Liable for What They Remail?
In-Reply-To: <199408111448.HAA17336@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Message-ID: <9408111629.AA29020@snark.imsi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Hal says:
> This is one of the things that worries me about the Digital
> Telephony bill.  In the various apologias and explanations from EFF,
> CyberWire Dispatch, etc.  about why EFF helped with this bill, it
> was mentioned that online service providers have been removed from
> its coverage because they are not "common carriers".  It only
> applies, they say, to common carriers like phone companies.

UUNET, among others, considers itself to be a common carrier.

Perry

Thread

• Return to August 1994

• Return to “Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>”
• Return to “jito@netcom.com (Joichi Ito)”
• Return to ““Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>”

• Return to “tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)”

• 1994-08-11 (Wed, 10 Aug 94 23:56:40 PDT) - Re: future existence of free remailers? - jito@netcom.com (Joichi Ito)
  • 1994-08-11 (Thu, 11 Aug 94 00:38:13 PDT) - Are Remailers Liable for What They Remail? - tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
    • 1994-08-11 (Thu, 11 Aug 94 07:48:26 PDT) - Re: Are Remailers Liable for What They Remail? - Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>
      • 1994-08-11 (Thu, 11 Aug 94 09:29:46 PDT) - Re: Are Remailers Liable for What They Remail? - “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>