Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:58:45 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> To: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert) Cc: n@nectar.com (Jacques Vidrine), chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups) Message-ID: <199909290058.RAA17813@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <199909282311.QAA13317@usr07.primenet.com> from Terry Lambert at "Sep 28, 1999 11:11:50 pm"
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
... > > Yes, I know there is no RFC or other standards document that says what > > an ISP is and how one must perform. I am merely expressing my opinion > > on the matter. > > Actually, there should be such RFC's. At the very least, it is > a topic ripe for Best Current Practice RFC's. I've been thinking exactly that for the past few days. Care to help me co-author one?? > > > We don't, but your violating IETF standards by doing anything other > > > than smtp on port 25 of tcp. > > > > AFAIK, there is no IETF standard which disallows traffic other than > > SMTP to flow on port 25. That isn't to say that it is wise to use > > ports in a way that conflict with the IANA Assigned Numbers > > (rfc1700?). Such use would probably be a response to some temporary > > problem, or maybe an experimental protocol. But, the point is, that > > is not the concern of the ISP. It is the business of the customer, > > only. The ISP is simply to deliver the packets from A to B. > > Yes. > > Legally, it's important for ISP's to be recognized as common > carriers, such that the Australia debacle gets resolved, and the > responsibility of implementing the unfunded mandates of a foreign > government does not devolve to people who are not even citizens > of the offending country. Ahhh... ISP's will never be classified as ``common carriers'': 47 USC 153 (10) COMMON CARRIER. -- The term ``common carrier'' or ``carrier'' means any person engaged as a common carrier [sic, self refering definition, can not be resolved :-(] for hire, in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio or in interstate or foreign radio transmission of energy, except where reference is made to common carriers not subject to this Act; but a person engaged in radio broadcasting shall not, insofar as such person is so engaged, be deemed a common carrier. They more properly fit one of the more defined carrier classes: 47 USC 153 (11) CONNECTING CARRIER. -- 47 USC 153 (26) LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIER -- 47 USC 153 (37) RURAL TELEPHONE COMPANY -- 47 USC 153 (44) TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER -- [this is the best fit] We, as in Accurate Communications, Inc, fall under 47 USC 153 (11), (26), and (44). We are treated as common carriers by reference from 153 (44) to 153 (10) with respect to only ``telecommunications services (47 USC 153 (46))''. It's all a very twisted maze of definitions that takes about 10 readings to even start getting the picture right. It even gets harder when you start reading the body of the ACT in that it says ``common carrier'' so many places, and you have to go, okay, we are only treated as a common carrier for the portions of the act that deal with telecomuunications services. It even gets harder when it says ``common carriers, but not connecting carriers'', now what do we do??? We are both :-). You call legal and pay them another lump some to unravel it for you and say well... they really meant to say ```blah blah blahh''.. :-) > Telephone carriers are not held legally responsible for interstate > data transport (for example), even when said transport violates > local community standards. They are common carriers; it is not > seen to be their job to police their customers actions. I would start reading 47 USC at section 230.... stop at 251. I can't seem to find anything in 47 USC that really addresses the exemption placed on ``carriers'', not just ``common carriers'' from certain legal and civil prosecution. It's probably some place in title 18. Also ``Telephone Carriers'' is not defined... ``Telecommunications Carriers'' would be the correct usage. Also note, Telecommunications Carriers != Common Carriers in all cases, only certain ones. And furthermore, though many view the benifit of having a Title 18 exclusion from criminal and civil prosecution under several portions of the code at large as a big benifit, they seem to ignore the very large offsetting requirements of having to meet a whole new section of law, USC 47, and all the legal problems it can bring, like universal access, requirements to file State PUC and Federal FCC yearly billing reports, etc, etc. Loss of right to refuse service, requirements of equal treatment of all clients, etc, etc. It is a _huge_ burden, one that must be weighted with great care. Our final solutions was to operate as seperate, but assoctiated legal entities. The ISP is operated as a totally seperate legal entity from the Carrier business, they do have a possible affiliated status under the 47 USC act, but so far the lawyers have keep us clean on that one. ... > > > > ISP's are _not_ common carriers, or at least the courts haven't made > > > up thier minds on this one. > > > > I don't suggest that they are common carriers (though I would guess > > that in time they will be). > > Me too! If you walk like a duck, talk like a duck, smell like a duck and look like a duck the law usually treats you like a duck. Any ISP can obtain ``Carrier'' status with a simple form, a long wait, and some times a small fee. It won't make them operating LEC's, but they will be ``Carriers'' under the law. > > > I suggest that an ISP is in the business of moving packets. > > Arbitrarily filtering packets conflicts with that business. > > Well, there's your stated business, and then there's your business. :-). -- Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the messagehelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199909290058.RAA17813>