FIPR amendment on "comms data"

[Charles Lindsey]

	On Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:42:38 +0100 (GMT)
	Quentin Campbell <Q.G.Campbell@newcastle.ac.uk> said...

> Why stop there? You could extend your argument to include the text of the
> message as well. Then the whole message becomes "communications data". 
> 
> A line has to be drawn somewhere.

My take on what is communications data is in Scenario 25, which we
discussed on this list a month or so back.
> 
> Since the original message headers need have no relationship at all to the
> *actual* envelope sender and recipient they are no business of Plod.
> 
> If you want to stretch the point then at the most Plod should only have
> access to the "Received:" headers since they are not "original" message
> headers or text.

Yes, a possible definition would be that any header not present in
the original message (or any header modified in transit) would be OK,
so that lets all the Received headers through, and any X-Trace stuff
added en route. Return-Path would count too, where it is used. But in
addition to that, I think a strong case can be made for From, Sender and
Message-ID. Because the envelope gives no clue to where it came from,
beyond the HELO address, and there may have been many hops before that.
And the Message-ID is often recorded in logging data by MTAs, I believe,
and anything in logging data is fair game almost by definition
> 
> However I would argue a more restrictive definition and suggest that in an
> SMTP exchange between any two relay hosts, *everything* that comes after
> the DATA statement should be treated as content. This would include
> progressively more "Received:" headers as the message traversed relay
> hosts. 

The problem is that it has to be written into the Bill in a
technologically neutral manner. For example, what is written has to
work as well for X.400. But suggestions for better wordings are always
welcome.

And actually, the definition in the Bill is not bad by the Bill's usual
abysmal standards. Roland just posted an analysis of it in this thread.

> 
> The key issue here is that none of this is used, nor effects in any way,
> the ability of the transmission system to effect delivery of the message
> (to the next relay host). I thought I saw this as a condition that defines
> "communications data" in RIP?

Yes.

Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email:     chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk  Web:   http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9     Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7  65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5