Man and machine (was Re: Is virus scanning interception?)

[Quentin Campbell]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Fairbrother [mailto:zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk]=20
> Sent: 24 July 2002 23:45
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: Man and machine (was Re: Is virus scanning=20
> interception?)=20
>=20
[snip]
> You could categorise your examples as to whether they are=20
> needed for message passing to operate. If so they're lawful=20
> under s3(3), if not they aren't. That's not 100% accurate,=20
> but it's close enough.

S3 does not anywhere refer to, or define, what is "needed for message
passing to operate".

In the provision and operation of our e-mail service this site has
decided that its security requires that anti-virus and anti-spam
filtering by software be done on messages. In addition we require the
notification of any serious delivery or system problem to the
Postmaster.

In implementing that policy we have followed the LBP Regulations.

Thus any occasion when all/part of a message is diverted to the
Postmaster because of a system or delivery error or a virus is
encountered, then that conduct is made lawful by S3(3).=20

Quentin
---
PHONE: +44 191 222 8209    Computing Service, University of Newcastle
FAX:   +44 191 222 8765    Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, NE1 7RU.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Any opinion expressed above is mine. The University can get its own."=20