S20(4) from a Judges point of view (perhaps)

[Owen Blacker]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

For more information, see the footer, another one of which will
helpfully have been appended by MessageLabs and UUNet   :o)

- -----Original Message-----
From: David Howe [mailto:DHowe@Hawkswing.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 1:42 PM
To: UK Crypto
Subject: Re: S20(4) from a Judges point of view (perhaps)


Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> No, but it might mean that SOME word attachments (those detected as
> being viruses) might be. All of which means that it must be the ISP
who
> does the filtering who works out which is comms data (and not any
"black
> box" operator). And actually, some of my suggested ammendments come
> pretty close to saying just that.
Not really - if the inbound mail is scanned, then routing is done
based on
the content of that mail - and having clean mail (and routing to the
intended destination) is as definite a routing decision as unclean
mail
being held up and/or sanitized. It looks to me like the act of
scanning
makes the content routing information, which must come as a horrible
shock
to the four "scan your email at the ISP level" firms that have been
extolling the virtues of their solution since the ILoveYou virus
hit..........


_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by UUNET delivered

through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information
visit
http://www.uk.uu.net/products/security/virus/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2

iQA/AwUBOUTdK8024CF+PI6rEQKz9gCeOn91U30thNgY2FSLzIVuh0uJkLQAoK/J
WCeQuoC/rMTpkSqzNiNLMCH6
=6lbc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by UUNET delivered 
through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit
http://www.uk.uu.net/products/security/virus/