Non ISP mail servers.... metadata
With the metadata laws.... does anyone here have a good understanding on how we stand running our own mail servers onsite for ourselves and/or for our clients (domains owned by us and also by clients) ? http://blog.fastmail.com/2015/04/09/fastmail-is-not-required-to-implement-th... Kind Regards AndrewM
On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 03:19:46PM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
With the metadata laws.... does anyone here have a good understanding on how we stand running our own mail servers onsite for ourselves and/or for our clients (domains owned by us and also by clients) ?
http://blog.fastmail.com/2015/04/09/fastmail-is-not-required-to-implement-th...
IANAL, but on my reading, unless you are a carrier or an internet service provider (within the meaning of Schedule 5 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992), then the metadata laws won't apply to you or your mail server. It probably doesn't matter much because most of the people you communicate with in australia will be using mail servers subject to the metadata retention laws anyway. It also doesn't matter because unless you make a habit of deleting your mail logs several times per day (or just not keeping any at all), cops and spooks can get a warrant for anything on your machine. and if you piss them off they'll just take anything even remotely resembling a "computer" and maybe you'll get (some of) it back one year if you can afford really good lawyers for really long court cases that will probably end up at the high court before it's all resolved. note: almost everything has a "computer" inside it these days. and they don't even really need a warrant because the govt's given them the legal right to hack if they want to. and if they decide to label you a terrorist (which has a scarily broad definition), you have almost no rights whatsoever. so, try not to be brown. or politically active. and ASIO can always ask the NSA for a copy of your mail, same as GCHQ does in the UK whenever they want data they're not legally allowed to gather themselves. The NSA considers themselves above the law outside the US and ignores (or creatively re-interprets) relevant laws inside the US. and they've got the bomb, so STFU you goddamn commie terrorist. and..... i'll stop now because i'm getting depressed. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
sorry about that everyone. i thought this was on luv-talk, not luv-main. wasn't paying attention. please ignore or imagine i sent the reply to luv-talk where this topic belongs. craig
On 7/10/2015 4:41 PM, Craig Sanders wrote:
sorry about that everyone. i thought this was on luv-talk, not luv-main. wasn't paying attention.
please ignore or imagine i sent the reply to luv-talk where this topic belongs.
This is a very serious issue for anyone running a Linux mail server, it most certainly should be discussed on luv-main... The politics of the matter /may/ well be better on luv-talk, but we have to live with this political situation and we have to consider our mail server(s) and obligations under this law as Linux using professionals ... and yes, I'm still using Linux. A.
On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 03:19:46 PM Andrew McGlashan wrote:
With the metadata laws.... does anyone here have a good understanding on how we stand running our own mail servers onsite for ourselves and/or for our clients (domains owned by us and also by clients) ?
http://blog.fastmail.com/2015/04/09/fastmail-is-not-required-to-implement-t he-australian-metadata-retention-laws/
If Fastmail is not an ISP according to the law then surely anyone else who runs a mail service for their clients would not be an ISP. Now if you ran a mail server and some other service for your clients then it might be different. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Hi Russell, Don't know why, but your message seems to have gotten to me, but not to the list? On 7/10/2015 4:30 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 03:19:46 PM Andrew McGlashan wrote:
With the metadata laws.... does anyone here have a good understanding on how we stand running our own mail servers onsite for ourselves and/or for our clients (domains owned by us and also by clients) ?
http://blog.fastmail.com/2015/04/09/fastmail-is-not-required-to-implement-t he-australian-metadata-retention-laws/
If Fastmail is not an ISP according to the law then surely anyone else who runs a mail service for their clients would not be an ISP.
Well, I am neither an ISP or a "carrier", but my servers are 100% Australian owned and operated from an AU address. I only have a micro sized business, often times business turnover will count for something in the definitions to determine what rules apply.
Now if you ran a mail server and some other service for your clients then it might be different.
I still don't know where I stand. Kind Regards AndrewM
It got to you by the list but I think your mail server rejected it due to a DMARC violation. I'm working on fixing that at the list server. On October 7, 2015 7:34:50 PM GMT+11:00, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
Hi Russell,
Don't know why, but your message seems to have gotten to me, but not to the list?
On 7/10/2015 4:30 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 03:19:46 PM Andrew McGlashan wrote:
With the metadata laws.... does anyone here have a good understanding on how we stand running our own mail servers onsite for ourselves and/or for our clients (domains owned by us and also by clients) ?
http://blog.fastmail.com/2015/04/09/fastmail-is-not-required-to-implement-t
he-australian-metadata-retention-laws/
If Fastmail is not an ISP according to the law then surely anyone else who runs a mail service for their clients would not be an ISP.
Well, I am neither an ISP or a "carrier", but my servers are 100% Australian owned and operated from an AU address. I only have a micro sized business, often times business turnover will count for something in the definitions to determine what rules apply.
Now if you ran a mail server and some other service for your clients then it might be different.
I still don't know where I stand.
Kind Regards AndrewM
-- Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 with K-9 Mail.
Hi Russell, On 7/10/2015 8:38 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
It got to you by the list but I think your mail server rejected it due to a DMARC violation. I'm working on fixing that at the list server.
Well, I've got 6 messages from the list today according to /var/log/exim4/mainlog and that matches what is in my mail folder. There is no message about any rejection and there are no luv messages in my /var/log/exim4/rejectlog .... So, it would seem that your "list copy" of the message hasn't gotten to my server at all. Are you seeing some kind of rejection at the luv server end? A.
On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 10:16:15 PM Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 7/10/2015 8:38 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
It got to you by the list but I think your mail server rejected it due to a DMARC violation. I'm working on fixing that at the list server.
No emails from you here either Russell, and there's nothing quarrantined as a false positive here. -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 07:34:50PM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Now if you ran a mail server and some other service for your clients then it might be different.
I still don't know where I stand.
that would be because there's no point in asking for legal advice on a mailing list. even if there are lawyers competent to answer the question here, they're not going to advise you on a list. all you'll get here is opinion and guesses and discussion. if you need legal advice, see a lawyer. preferably one specialising in telecommunications issues. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
if you need legal advice, see a lawyer. preferably one specialising in telecommunications issues.
Yes, that's exactly right. I am not a lawyer, but I am a law school graduate. When I need legal advice, I consult a lawyer who specializes in the relevant area - it's much quicker and more reliable than looking up the legislation, regulations or case-law and doing the proper research, even though I'm technically qualified to do it.
participants (5)
-
Andrew McGlashan -
Chris Samuel -
Craig Sanders -
Jason White -
Russell Coker