On 09/03/2024 12:28, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <4tinuiloeghfv1vp3oirgfnud108tl2i7c@4ax.com>, at 18:40:17 on
> Fri, 8 Mar 2024, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> remarked:
>
>>> Having written most of the law in this area, I don't need warning,
>>> thankyou.
>>
>> Now you're a formulator of UK law for presentation to Parliament?
>
> Yes. I cut my teeth on EU Directives and then moved focus to Westminster
> (where I had earlier made significant contribution to the drafting of
> RIPA, and somewhat less to the Sexual Offences Act - and how it would
> apply online).
>
> Sole drafter of a Private Members Bill to consolidate lots of legacy
> online abuse laws, but just one of a small team working on the "New
> Stalking Law", the Coercive Control Law, and then finished with s103 of
> the Digital Economy Bill which was seeking to take a little bit of the
> "wild West" out of social media.
>
>  <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/30/section/103/enacted>
>
> The drafting isn't the main burden but I then spent weeks trying to get
> the Investigatory Powers Bill 2016 (successor to RIPA) onto the right
> tracks.

RIPA and its successor are two of the worst breaches of personal rights
perpetrated by any UK government, at least in peacetime. Someone, not
necessarily you, should be very ashamed of themselves.

In message <usie26$2frjt$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:41:58 on Sat, 9 Mar
2024, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>On 09/03/2024 12:28, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <4tinuiloeghfv1vp3oirgfnud108tl2i7c@4ax.com>, at 18:40:17
>>on Fri, 8 Mar 2024, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> Having written most of the law in this area, I don't need warning,
>>>> thankyou.
>>>
>>> Now you're a formulator of UK law for presentation to Parliament?
>> Yes. I cut my teeth on EU Directives and then moved focus to
>>Westminster (where I had earlier made significant contribution to the
>>drafting of RIPA, and somewhat less to the Sexual Offences Act - and
>>how it would apply online).

>> Sole drafter of a Private Members Bill to consolidate lots of legacy
>>online abuse laws, but just one of a small team working on the "New
>>Stalking Law", the Coercive Control Law, and then finished with s103
>>of the Digital Economy Bill which was seeking to take a little bit of
>>the "wild West" out of social media.

>>  <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/30/section/103/enacted>
>> The drafting isn't the main burden but I then spent weeks trying to
>>get the Investigatory Powers Bill 2016 (successor to RIPA) onto the
>>right tracks.
>
>RIPA and its successor are two of the worst breaches of personal rights
>perpetrated by any UK government, at least in peacetime. Someone, not
>necessarily you, should be very ashamed of themselves.

You've just joined the "opposite of what is actually the truth" club.
The key words are "Regulation of", which means RIPA brought some
official rules (and a very strong enforcement scheme) to what was
previously a wild-west for the authorities [and some people who just
imagined they were authorities] to gather data, tap phones etc.

The trigger was the introduction of the Human Rights Act, and it was a
privacy *enhancing* measure. It's a constant surprise to me how so many
apparently intelligent people grasp the entirely wrong end of the stick.

My role was to ensure that the new rules firmly aligned with the reality
of telecoms, rather than some muddled preconception by civilians as to
how telecoms were organised and delivered. There's a limit to how much
one can regulate telecomms as simply an electronic analogy to Royal
Mail, and so it was necessary to drill down into the various classes of
communications data, which on a snail mail is typically only the
addressee and the postmark. But email leave a bigger footprint than
that.

The result of the legislation was a significant *reduction* in the
number of organisations allowed to snoop on people, as well as a whole
raft of training courses and audit trails to make sure people followed
the rules.

The successor simply extended that regulation scheme to the authoritys'
use of what's generally known as "big data", rather than just simple
point-to-point communications - to keep up with what was happening in
the real world.
--
Roland Perry

On 10/03/2024 01:47, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <usie26$2frjt$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:41:58 on Sat, 9 Mar
> 2024, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>> On 09/03/2024 12:28, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <4tinuiloeghfv1vp3oirgfnud108tl2i7c@4ax.com>, at 18:40:17
>>> on  Fri, 8 Mar 2024, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> Having written most of the law in this area, I don't need warning,
>>>>> thankyou.
>>>>
>>>> Now you're a formulator of UK law for presentation to Parliament?
>>>  Yes. I cut my teeth on EU Directives and then moved focus to
>>> Westminster  (where I had earlier made significant contribution to
>>> the drafting of  RIPA, and somewhat less to the Sexual Offences Act -
>>> and how it would  apply online).
>
>>>  Sole drafter of a Private Members Bill to consolidate lots of legacy
>>> online abuse laws, but just one of a small team working on the "New
>>> Stalking Law", the Coercive Control Law, and then finished with s103
>>> of  the Digital Economy Bill which was seeking to take a little bit
>>> of the  "wild West" out of social media.
>
>>>    <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/30/section/103/enacted>
>>>  The drafting isn't the main burden but I then spent weeks trying to
>>> get  the Investigatory Powers Bill 2016 (successor to RIPA) onto the
>>> right  tracks.
>>
>> RIPA and its successor are two of the worst breaches of personal rights
>> perpetrated by any UK government, at least in peacetime.  Someone, not
>> necessarily you, should be very ashamed of themselves.
>
> You've just joined the "opposite of what is actually the truth" club.
> The key words are "Regulation of", which means RIPA brought some
> official rules (and a very strong enforcement scheme) to what was
> previously a wild-west for the authorities [and some people who just
> imagined they were authorities] to gather data, tap phones etc.
>
> The trigger was the introduction of the Human Rights Act, and it was a
> privacy *enhancing* measure. It's a constant surprise to me how so many
> apparently intelligent people grasp the entirely wrong end of the stick.
>
> My role was to ensure that the new rules firmly aligned with the reality
> of telecoms, rather than some muddled preconception by civilians as to
> how telecoms were organised and delivered. There's a limit to how much
> one can regulate telecomms as simply an electronic analogy to Royal
> Mail, and so it was necessary to drill down into the various classes of
> communications data, which on a snail mail is typically only the
> addressee and the postmark. But email leave a bigger footprint than that.
>
> The result of the legislation was a significant *reduction* in the
> number of organisations allowed to snoop on people, as well as a whole
> raft of training courses and audit trails to make sure people followed
> the rules.
>
> The successor simply extended that regulation scheme to the authoritys'
> use of what's generally known as "big data", rather than just simple
> point-to-point communications - to keep up with what was happening in
> the real world.

The acts were marketed as regulation and did indeed restrict some abuses
but, IMHO, that name was mainly spin. To me, its nickname "Snoopers'
Charter" seems a more accurate reflection of most of the content.
Thank you for your role in moderating its worst excesses.

In message <usjv31$2sv3c$3@dont-email.me>, at 09:38:41 on Sun, 10 Mar
2024, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>On 10/03/2024 01:47, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <usie26$2frjt$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:41:58 on Sat, 9 Mar
>>2024, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>>> On 09/03/2024 12:28, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <4tinuiloeghfv1vp3oirgfnud108tl2i7c@4ax.com>, at
>>>>18:40:17 on  Fri, 8 Mar 2024, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> Having written most of the law in this area, I don't need warning,
>>>>>> thankyou.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now you're a formulator of UK law for presentation to Parliament?
>>>>  Yes. I cut my teeth on EU Directives and then moved focus to
>>>>Westminster  (where I had earlier made significant contribution to
>>>>the drafting of  RIPA, and somewhat less to the Sexual Offences Act
>>>>- and how it would  apply online).
>>
>>>>  Sole drafter of a Private Members Bill to consolidate lots of
>>>>legacy online abuse laws, but just one of a small team working on
>>>>the "New Stalking Law", the Coercive Control Law, and then finished
>>>>with s103 of  the Digital Economy Bill which was seeking to take a
>>>>little bit of the  "wild West" out of social media.
>>
>>>>  
>>>> <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/30/section/103/enacted>
>>>>  The drafting isn't the main burden but I then spent weeks trying
>>>>to get  the Investigatory Powers Bill 2016 (successor to RIPA) onto
>>>>the right  tracks.
>>>
>>> RIPA and its successor are two of the worst breaches of personal rights
>>> perpetrated by any UK government, at least in peacetime.  Someone, not
>>> necessarily you, should be very ashamed of themselves.

>> You've just joined the "opposite of what is actually the truth"
>>club. The key words are "Regulation of", which means RIPA brought
>>some official rules (and a very strong enforcement scheme) to what
>>was previously a wild-west for the authorities [and some people who
>>just imagined they were authorities] to gather data, tap phones etc.

>> The trigger was the introduction of the Human Rights Act, and it was
>>a privacy *enhancing* measure. It's a constant surprise to me how so
>>many apparently intelligent people grasp the entirely wrong end of
>>the stick.

>> My role was to ensure that the new rules firmly aligned with the
>>reality of telecoms, rather than some muddled preconception by
>>civilians as to how telecoms were organised and delivered. There's a
>>limit to how much one can regulate telecomms as simply an electronic
>>analogy to Royal Mail, and so it was necessary to drill down into the
>>various classes of communications data, which on a snail mail is
>>typically only the addressee and the postmark. But email leave a
>>bigger footprint than that.

>> The result of the legislation was a significant *reduction* in the
>>number of organisations allowed to snoop on people, as well as a whole
>>raft of training courses and audit trails to make sure people followed
>>the rules.

>> The successor simply extended that regulation scheme to the
>>authoritys' use of what's generally known as "big data", rather than
>>just simple point-to-point communications - to keep up with what was
>>happening in the real world.
>
>The acts were marketed as regulation and did indeed restrict some abuses
>but, IMHO, that name was mainly spin. To me, its nickname "Snoopers'
>Charter" seems a more accurate reflection of most of the content.

"Snoopers charter" was the spectacularly successful spin put on it by
opponents. Ironic because it was really "snoopers handcuffs" which
dramatically reduced their former freedoms.

Before it was enacted, any tom, dick or harry could turn up demanding
data either bullying the holder by wearing a uniform, or threatening to
take them to court to get an order, a costly exercise for the holder to
turn up in person to defend the claim, even if the court later said "you
have to be kidding".

By 1999 the exponential growth of the Internet had caused this
phenomenon to get entirely out of hand, with bigger telcos/ISPs having
whole departments to fend off the fishing expeditions they were being
dragged into.

>Thank you for your role in moderating its worst excesses.

The excesses were poor drafting (so it wasn't sufficiently clear who had
to do what), and the risk of telcos/ISPs being asked the impossible.

One good example was email logs. One of the things law enforcement
wanted was to know who suspects were communicating with, and they had
heard about POP3 server logs and supposed that if they got hold of them
it would reveal who the suspect's correspondents were.

Sadly that's not what is logged.

He's an extract from my log yesterday:

Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:49:06 Finished collecting mail from POP3 server
pop3.perry.uk, 1 messages accepted, 0 rejected
Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:49:06 0 messages deleted from POP3 server, 130
messages remain

At the risk of over-egging the point, it *doesn't* say anything
whatsoever about the sender of the one email.

But having to repeat this exercise dozens of times a day with people to
prove there's nothing useful available, cost lots of effort (and money).
RIPA as a spinoff meant the people doing the requesting had been on a
training course (which I used to give one day of, it was mainly about
voice telephony) to let them know in advance that particular request was
futile.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 11:37:54 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>One good example was email logs. One of the things law enforcement
>wanted was to know who suspects were communicating with, and they had
>heard about POP3 server logs and supposed that if they got hold of them
>it would reveal who the suspect's correspondents were.
>
>Sadly that's not what is logged.
>
>He's an extract from my log yesterday:
>
>Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:49:06 Finished collecting mail from POP3 server
> pop3.perry.uk, 1 messages accepted, 0 rejected
>Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:49:06 0 messages deleted from POP3 server, 130
> messages remain
>
>At the risk of over-egging the point, it *doesn't* say anything
>whatsoever about the sender of the one email.

SMTP logs do have that information, though. Here's a redacted extract from
one of mine:

Mar 10 17:41:03 server4 postfix/qmgr[588]: 1A6301A0001: from=<xxxx@xxxx>,
size=1174, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Mar 10 17:41:03 server4 postfix/smtp[19050]: 1A6301A0001: to=<xxxx@xxxx>,
orig_to=<xxxx@xxxx>, relay=ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM[74.125.71.26]:25, delay=0.49,
delays=0.08/0/0.07/0.34, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0 OK 1710092463
i17-20020a5d6311000000b0033e480dbcf4si1923228wru.98 - gsmtp)

There are three email addresses in there, which I've removed as they are
personal data, as well as server hostnames and IP addresses, which aren't
personal data so I've left them in. But all of that is useful data to law
enforcement if one of the email addresses belongs to someone they are
investigating.

The specific issue with RIPA, which led to it being dubbed the "Snoopers
Charter", was that it allowed the government to mandate that logs like this
must be collected and stored (a Data Retention Notice) even in cases where
they would not routinely be collected or stored for longer than was strictly
necessary for functional purposes (eg, monitoring the performance of an
email server). That's quite different from regulating access to existing
data. Having the power to force the collection of data that would, were it
not for the exercise of that power, not normally exist, is something that,
pre-RIPA, didn't exist. That's not just the retention of of things like
email logs, which are routinely collected, but, at least in theory, it
allows the government to mandate the collection and retention of data which
wouldn't normally be collected even if doing so would significantly impact
both the privacy of the system's users and the performance of the system.

Mark

In message <fesruitaok2li7lc28tsmd6ivagmltkvto@4ax.com>, at 18:26:08 on
Sun, 10 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 11:37:54 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>One good example was email logs. One of the things law enforcement
>>wanted was to know who suspects were communicating with, and they had
>>heard about POP3 server logs and supposed that if they got hold of them
>>it would reveal who the suspect's correspondents were.
>>
>>Sadly that's not what is logged.
>>
>>He's an extract from my log yesterday:
>>
>>Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:49:06 Finished collecting mail from POP3 server
>> pop3.perry.uk, 1 messages accepted, 0 rejected
>>Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:49:06 0 messages deleted from POP3 server, 130
>> messages remain
>>
>>At the risk of over-egging the point, it *doesn't* say anything
>>whatsoever about the sender of the one email.
>
>SMTP logs do have that information, though.

You pick your email up by SMTP?? How quaint.

>Here's a redacted extract from one of mine:
>
>Mar 10 17:41:03 server4 postfix/qmgr[588]: 1A6301A0001: from=<xxxx@xxxx>,
>size=1174, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
>Mar 10 17:41:03 server4 postfix/smtp[19050]: 1A6301A0001: to=<xxxx@xxxx>,
>orig_to=<xxxx@xxxx>, relay=ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM[74.125.71.26]:25, delay=0.49,
>delays=0.08/0/0.07/0.34, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0 OK 1710092463
>i17-20020a5d6311000000b0033e480dbcf4si1923228wru.98 - gsmtp)
>
>There are three email addresses in there, which I've removed as they are
>personal data, as well as server hostnames and IP addresses, which aren't
>personal data so I've left them in. But all of that is useful data to law
>enforcement if one of the email addresses belongs to someone they are
>investigating.
>
>The specific issue with RIPA, which led to it being dubbed the "Snoopers
>Charter", was that it allowed the government to mandate that logs like this
>must be collected and stored (a Data Retention Notice) even in cases where
>they would not routinely be collected or stored for longer than was strictly
>necessary for functional purposes (eg, monitoring the performance of an
>email server).

I think you might be confusing it with Data Retention laws introduced
poet 9/11. If there's a provision to ask and ISP to retain logs on a
specific user, that's no different to the legacy laws which RIPA
replaced, and while doing so introduced strict checks of necessity and
audit trail which weren't there before.

>That's quite different from regulating access to existing
>data. Having the power to force the collection of data that would, were it
>not for the exercise of that power, not normally exist, is something that,
>pre-RIPA, didn't exist.

Of course it did! Don't be silly. It wasn't used very often but it was a
rubber-stamped precursor to the police getting a 'search warrant' (to
avoid evidence being destroyed before they could turn up with that
warrant.

>That's not just the retention of of things like
>email logs, which are routinely collected, but, at least in theory, it
>allows the government to mandate the collection and retention of data which
>wouldn't normally be collected even if doing so would significantly impact
>both the privacy of the system's users and the performance of the system.

That's no different to the pre-RIPA schemes, apart from RIPA have a
gtreat bar to entry, codes of practice, logging/monitoring and a
Commissioner people can complain to.

If you don't know that, then it's really hard to take anything you post
on the subject seriously.

ps One of the reasons the industry generally supported RIPA was they
knew it would significantly *reduce* the number of instances those sorts
of investigative procedures would be deployed; as well as being able to
query the proportionality which previously wasn't in the equation.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:49:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <fesruitaok2li7lc28tsmd6ivagmltkvto@4ax.com>, at 18:26:08 on
>Sun, 10 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>>On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 11:37:54 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>One good example was email logs. One of the things law enforcement
>>>wanted was to know who suspects were communicating with, and they had
>>>heard about POP3 server logs and supposed that if they got hold of them
>>>it would reveal who the suspect's correspondents were.
>>>
>>>Sadly that's not what is logged.
>>>
>>>He's an extract from my log yesterday:
>>>
>>>Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:49:06 Finished collecting mail from POP3 server
>>> pop3.perry.uk, 1 messages accepted, 0 rejected
>>>Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:49:06 0 messages deleted from POP3 server, 130
>>> messages remain
>>>
>>>At the risk of over-egging the point, it *doesn't* say anything
>>>whatsoever about the sender of the one email.
>>
>>SMTP logs do have that information, though.
>
>You pick your email up by SMTP?? How quaint.

No, it gets delivered to my IMAP server by SMTP. As does yours, unless you
happen to be using Microsoft Exchange. But even that hands off to other,
non-Exchange systems via SMTP.

>>The specific issue with RIPA, which led to it being dubbed the "Snoopers
>>Charter", was that it allowed the government to mandate that logs like this
>>must be collected and stored (a Data Retention Notice) even in cases where
>>they would not routinely be collected or stored for longer than was strictly
>>necessary for functional purposes (eg, monitoring the performance of an
>>email server).
>
>I think you might be confusing it with Data Retention laws introduced
>poet 9/11. If there's a provision to ask and ISP to retain logs on a
>specific user, that's no different to the legacy laws which RIPA
>replaced, and while doing so introduced strict checks of necessity and
>audit trail which weren't there before.

No, I'm thinking of section 22 of RIPA. Specifically, paragraph (4)(a).

Mark

In message <4o5suidd4bdb9lu1nhs657oef20e426l0b@4ax.com>, at 20:29:49 on
Sun, 10 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:49:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <fesruitaok2li7lc28tsmd6ivagmltkvto@4ax.com>, at 18:26:08 on
>>Sun, 10 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>remarked:
>>>On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 11:37:54 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>One good example was email logs. One of the things law enforcement
>>>>wanted was to know who suspects were communicating with, and they had
>>>>heard about POP3 server logs and supposed that if they got hold of them
>>>>it would reveal who the suspect's correspondents were.
>>>>
>>>>Sadly that's not what is logged.
>>>>
>>>>He's an extract from my log yesterday:
>>>>
>>>>Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:49:06 Finished collecting mail from POP3 server
>>>> pop3.perry.uk, 1 messages accepted, 0 rejected
>>>>Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:49:06 0 messages deleted from POP3 server, 130
>>>> messages remain
>>>>
>>>>At the risk of over-egging the point, it *doesn't* say anything
>>>>whatsoever about the sender of the one email.
>>>
>>>SMTP logs do have that information, though.
>>
>>You pick your email up by SMTP?? How quaint.
>
>No, it gets delivered to my IMAP server by SMTP. As does yours, unless you
>happen to be using Microsoft Exchange. But even that hands off to other,
>non-Exchange systems via SMTP.

I don't use IMAP because I've always considered it to be a kludge.

I suppose "my" POP3 server is that outsourced to a non-connectivity ISP
which hosts my domain. What the police would want to know is whether
they could get the SMTP logs from the upstream feed to that, as well as
the [useless] POPs logs from the downstream. But most of them aren't
savvy enough to even understand the question.

For a few years I did run an SMTP server at home, and pointed some of
the MX records for a subset of my domains to it. But it's not very
suitable as a technology to use while out on the road. Anyway in that
situation the police would not be trying to serve a RIPA notice on my
connectivity ISP, but on *me*, which if I was up to no good would rather
give the game away. And any self respecting criminal would ignore.

>>>The specific issue with RIPA, which led to it being dubbed the "Snoopers
>>>Charter", was that it allowed the government to mandate that logs like this
>>>must be collected and stored (a Data Retention Notice) even in cases where
>>>they would not routinely be collected or stored for longer than was strictly
>>>necessary for functional purposes (eg, monitoring the performance of an
>>>email server).
>>
>>I think you might be confusing it with Data Retention laws introduced
>>poet 9/11. If there's a provision to ask and ISP to retain logs on a
>>specific user, that's no different to the legacy laws which RIPA
>>replaced, and while doing so introduced strict checks of necessity and
>>audit trail which weren't there before.
>
>No, I'm thinking of section 22 of RIPA. Specifically, paragraph (4)(a).

Which should be read in conjunction with (5) - proportionality, and (7)
- only if reasonably practicable. The result being it's almost never
invoked, and if it were would have the full panoply of RIPA red tape.

Whereas the former very similar legacy provisions based on search
warrants had none of that, and were therefore vastly more intrusive
on the public.

Therefore your conspiracy theory collapses, I'm afraid.

--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 02:05:34 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <useumc$1m1pa$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:01:16 on Fri, 8 Mar
> 2024, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>B) Wasting police time
> That's a bit of a mythical concept.

It's an offence under section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967:

(2)Where a person causes any wasteful employment of the police by
knowingly making to any person a false report tending to show that an
offence has been committed, or to give rise to apprehension for the safety
of any persons or property, or tending to show that he has information
material to any police inquiry, he shall be liable on summary conviction
to imprisonment for not more than six months or to a fine of not more than
level 4 on the standard scale or to both.

But note *false* report - it doesn't cover truthfully reporting something
to the police where no offence has been committed or that isn't a police
matter.

Mike

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 02:22:41 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <4o5suidd4bdb9lu1nhs657oef20e426l0b@4ax.com>, at 20:29:49 on
>Sun, 10 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>>On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:49:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <fesruitaok2li7lc28tsmd6ivagmltkvto@4ax.com>, at 18:26:08 on
>>>Sun, 10 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>>remarked:
>>>>On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 11:37:54 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>One good example was email logs. One of the things law enforcement
>>>>>wanted was to know who suspects were communicating with, and they had
>>>>>heard about POP3 server logs and supposed that if they got hold of them
>>>>>it would reveal who the suspect's correspondents were.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sadly that's not what is logged.
>>>>>
>>>>>He's an extract from my log yesterday:
>>>>>
>>>>>Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:49:06 Finished collecting mail from POP3 server
>>>>> pop3.perry.uk, 1 messages accepted, 0 rejected
>>>>>Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:49:06 0 messages deleted from POP3 server, 130
>>>>> messages remain
>>>>>
>>>>>At the risk of over-egging the point, it *doesn't* say anything
>>>>>whatsoever about the sender of the one email.
>>>>
>>>>SMTP logs do have that information, though.
>>>
>>>You pick your email up by SMTP?? How quaint.
>>
>>No, it gets delivered to my IMAP server by SMTP. As does yours, unless you
>>happen to be using Microsoft Exchange. But even that hands off to other,
>>non-Exchange systems via SMTP.
>
>I don't use IMAP because I've always considered it to be a kludge.
>
>I suppose "my" POP3 server is that outsourced to a non-connectivity ISP
>which hosts my domain. What the police would want to know is whether
>they could get the SMTP logs from the upstream feed to that, as well as
>the [useless] POPs logs from the downstream. But most of them aren't
>savvy enough to even understand the question.

The police could get the SMTP logs from the server which hosts your POP3
mailbox, and the server that your local client connects to to send outbound
mail, which is normally the same system (unless your client is doing
direct-to-MX, which bypasses your hosting provider's SMTP server but is
liable to get your email flagged as spam, or unless you have some other
outbound email provider). Both of those will normally be enough to tell them
who you've been in contact with. They wouldn't normally need to go to your
host's upstream.

Mark

In message <usqe6u$fnrj$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:33:34 on Tue, 12 Mar
2024, Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> remarked:
>On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 02:05:34 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <useumc$1m1pa$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:01:16 on Fri, 8 Mar
>> 2024, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>B) Wasting police time
>> That's a bit of a mythical concept.
>
>It's an offence under section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967:
>
>(2)Where a person causes any wasteful employment of the police by
>knowingly making to any person a false report tending to show that an
>offence has been committed, or to give rise to apprehension for the safety
>of any persons or property, or tending to show that he has information
>material to any police inquiry, he shall be liable on summary conviction
>to imprisonment for not more than six months or to a fine of not more than
>level 4 on the standard scale or to both.

The question is, like littering, driving on the pavement, and most
domestic burglaries, do the police have any appetite for actually
investigating and pressing charges?

The CMA is well know and even vaguely understood, but there's still only
a handful of prosecutions each year, despite most likely millions of
individual offences having been committed.

>But note *false* report - it doesn't cover truthfully reporting something
>to the police where no offence has been committed or that isn't a police
>matter.

That's a bit like the Malicious Communications Act, where the matter has
to be *false*, when it's just as malicious sometimes to communicate the
truth (see for example revenge porn).
--
Roland Perry

In message <82j1vip9inttl6v9e7qpmm2ma7ge2brhac@4ax.com>, at 21:56:12 on
Tue, 12 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 02:22:41 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <4o5suidd4bdb9lu1nhs657oef20e426l0b@4ax.com>, at 20:29:49 on
>>Sun, 10 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>remarked:
>>>On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:49:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <fesruitaok2li7lc28tsmd6ivagmltkvto@4ax.com>, at 18:26:08 on
>>>>Sun, 10 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>>>remarked:
>>>>>On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 11:37:54 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>One good example was email logs. One of the things law enforcement
>>>>>>wanted was to know who suspects were communicating with, and they had
>>>>>>heard about POP3 server logs and supposed that if they got hold of them
>>>>>>it would reveal who the suspect's correspondents were.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sadly that's not what is logged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He's an extract from my log yesterday:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:49:06 Finished collecting mail from POP3 server
>>>>>> pop3.perry.uk, 1 messages accepted, 0 rejected
>>>>>>Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:49:06 0 messages deleted from POP3 server, 130
>>>>>> messages remain
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At the risk of over-egging the point, it *doesn't* say anything
>>>>>>whatsoever about the sender of the one email.
>>>>>
>>>>>SMTP logs do have that information, though.
>>>>
>>>>You pick your email up by SMTP?? How quaint.
>>>
>>>No, it gets delivered to my IMAP server by SMTP. As does yours, unless you
>>>happen to be using Microsoft Exchange. But even that hands off to other,
>>>non-Exchange systems via SMTP.
>>
>>I don't use IMAP because I've always considered it to be a kludge.
>>
>>I suppose "my" POP3 server is that outsourced to a non-connectivity ISP
>>which hosts my domain. What the police would want to know is whether
>>they could get the SMTP logs from the upstream feed to that, as well as
>>the [useless] POPs logs from the downstream. But most of them aren't
>>savvy enough to even understand the question.
>
>The police could get the SMTP logs from the server which hosts your POP3
>mailbox,

As long as they knew such logs existed, and it's right at the edge of
their training. Also one of the things I wrote to my members about at
the time was pointing out the way RIPA might make people think about
only keeping such logs while they have a legitimate business purpose -
rather than years because no-one had got round to writing some software
to purge them. Some smaller ISPs might be unfamiliar with the process of
querying the logs for entries from one subscriber.

I'm not sure there is *any* realistic business purpose because we are
well past the era you could ring up your ISP's helpdesk and ask them if
an apparently undelivered email had got that far (and may have failed
the POP3 stage). But even then 5days should be sufficient.

>and the server that your local client connects to to send outbound
>mail, which is normally the same system (unless your client is doing
>direct-to-MX, which bypasses your hosting provider's SMTP server but is
>liable to get your email flagged as spam, or unless you have some other
>outbound email provider).

I've currently got different inbound and outbound non-connectivity ISPs
for email. Mainly because a project to transfer everything from one to
the other has got stuck on the round tuit pile. I've also run
direct-to-MX for a subset of my email, more to get some experience of
the technology, but also because one of my clients insisted that email I
sent affiliated to their domain was sent through their outbound servers
and not my domestic one.

It was a huge pain, but at least it meant emails to colleagues wasn't
auto-marked "EXTERNAL EMAIL, GET OUT YOUR DISINFECTED BARGE POLE"

>Both of those will normally be enough to tell them who you've been in
>contact with. They wouldn't normally need to go to your host's upstream.
>
>Mark

--
Roland Perry

On 10/03/2024 20:29, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:49:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <fesruitaok2li7lc28tsmd6ivagmltkvto@4ax.com>, at 18:26:08 on
>> Sun, 10 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>> remarked:
>>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 11:37:54 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One good example was email logs. One of the things law enforcement
>>>> wanted was to know who suspects were communicating with, and they had
>>>> heard about POP3 server logs and supposed that if they got hold of them
>>>> it would reveal who the suspect's correspondents were.
>>>>
>>>> Sadly that's not what is logged.
>>>>
>>>> He's an extract from my log yesterday:
>>>>
>>>> Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:49:06 Finished collecting mail from POP3 server
>>>> pop3.perry.uk, 1 messages accepted, 0 rejected
>>>> Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:49:06 0 messages deleted from POP3 server, 130
>>>> messages remain
>>>>
>>>> At the risk of over-egging the point, it *doesn't* say anything
>>>> whatsoever about the sender of the one email.
>>>
>>> SMTP logs do have that information, though.
>>
>> You pick your email up by SMTP?? How quaint.
>
> No, it gets delivered to my IMAP server by SMTP. As does yours, unless you
> happen to be using Microsoft Exchange. But even that hands off to other,
> non-Exchange systems via SMTP.

All my email is transferred by POP or SMTP and that is not at all
unusual as I know others who do the same. It is an internationally
accepted means for handling email and is certainly not quaint.

>
>>> The specific issue with RIPA, which led to it being dubbed the "Snoopers
>>> Charter", was that it allowed the government to mandate that logs like this
>>> must be collected and stored (a Data Retention Notice) even in cases where
>>> they would not routinely be collected or stored for longer than was strictly
>>> necessary for functional purposes (eg, monitoring the performance of an
>>> email server).
>>
>> I think you might be confusing it with Data Retention laws introduced
>> poet 9/11. If there's a provision to ask and ISP to retain logs on a
>> specific user, that's no different to the legacy laws which RIPA
>> replaced, and while doing so introduced strict checks of necessity and
>> audit trail which weren't there before.
>
> No, I'm thinking of section 22 of RIPA. Specifically, paragraph (4)(a).
>
> Mark

In message <utrol0$12k17$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:54:08 on Mon, 25 Mar
2024, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>On 10/03/2024 20:29, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:49:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <fesruitaok2li7lc28tsmd6ivagmltkvto@4ax.com>, at 18:26:08
>>>on
>>> Sun, 10 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>> remarked:
>>>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 11:37:54 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One good example was email logs. One of the things law enforcement
>>>>> wanted was to know who suspects were communicating with, and they had
>>>>> heard about POP3 server logs and supposed that if they got hold of them
>>>>> it would reveal who the suspect's correspondents were.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sadly that's not what is logged.
>>>>>
>>>>> He's an extract from my log yesterday:
>>>>>
>>>>> Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:49:06 Finished collecting mail from POP3 server
>>>>> pop3.perry.uk, 1 messages accepted, 0 rejected
>>>>> Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:49:06 0 messages deleted from POP3 server, 130
>>>>> messages remain
>>>>>
>>>>> At the risk of over-egging the point, it *doesn't* say anything
>>>>> whatsoever about the sender of the one email.
>>>>
>>>> SMTP logs do have that information, though.
>>>
>>> You pick your email up by SMTP?? How quaint.

>> No, it gets delivered to my IMAP server by SMTP. As does yours,
>>unless you
>> happen to be using Microsoft Exchange. But even that hands off to other,
>> non-Exchange systems via SMTP.
>
>All my email is transferred by POP or SMTP

>>> You pick your email up by SMTP?? How quaint.

If you do that, you won't be needing POP3!

>and that is not at all unusual as I know others who do the same. It is
>an internationally accepted means for handling email and is certainly
>not quaint.

It's almost impossible nowadays to send your own SMTP email direct to
the recipient's server (which is the original internationally accepted
way), as a result of various anti-spam measures.

--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:29:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <utrol0$12k17$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:54:08 on Mon, 25 Mar
>2024, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:

>>and that is not at all unusual as I know others who do the same. It is
>>an internationally accepted means for handling email and is certainly
>>not quaint.
>
>It's almost impossible nowadays to send your own SMTP email direct to
>the recipient's server (which is the original internationally accepted
>way), as a result of various anti-spam measures.

No; but unless you're using Exchange or webmail, your email will still
travel from your local machine to your immediate upstream by SMTP.

Mark

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:29:57 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <utrol0$12k17$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:54:08 on Mon, 25 Mar
>2024, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>and that is not at all unusual as I know others who do the same. It is
>>an internationally accepted means for handling email and is certainly
>>not quaint.
>
>It's almost impossible nowadays to send your own SMTP email direct to
>the recipient's server (which is the original internationally accepted
>way), as a result of various anti-spam measures.

Back in the day when I used to set up sendmail on my linux boxes there was
an option to tell it to try port 25 directly at the recipients end rather than
the SMTP gateway given by the MX records. Of course that depended on the email
address containing a full DNS address Demon style, something that almost never
happens these days.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:10:13 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:29:57 +0000
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <utrol0$12k17$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:54:08 on Mon, 25 Mar
>>2024, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>and that is not at all unusual as I know others who do the same. It is
>>>an internationally accepted means for handling email and is certainly
>>>not quaint.
>>
>>It's almost impossible nowadays to send your own SMTP email direct to
>>the recipient's server (which is the original internationally accepted
>>way), as a result of various anti-spam measures.
>
>Back in the day when I used to set up sendmail on my linux boxes there was
>an option to tell it to try port 25 directly at the recipients end rather than
>the SMTP gateway given by the MX records. Of course that depended on the email
>address containing a full DNS address Demon style, something that almost never
>happens these days.

All Internet email addresses have a full DNS address in the right hand side.
Otherwise, the email wouldn't get there. What you're thinking of is where
the right hand side not only is a fully qualified domain name (FQDN), but
where the A (and/or AAAA) record of the FQDN is also the mail server which
handles email for it. That is generally less common these days, although it
is still often the case for smaller web/email hosting operators where a
single box handles both email and web hosting for their customers.

Mark

On 25/03/2024 16:29, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <utrol0$12k17$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:54:08 on Mon, 25 Mar
> 2024, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>> On 10/03/2024 20:29, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:49:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <fesruitaok2li7lc28tsmd6ivagmltkvto@4ax.com>, at 18:26:08 on
>>>> Sun, 10 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>>> remarked:
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 11:37:54 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> One good example was email logs. One of the things law enforcement
>>>>>> wanted was to know who suspects were communicating with, and they had
>>>>>> heard about POP3 server logs and supposed that if they got hold of
>>>>>> them
>>>>>> it would reveal who the suspect's correspondents were.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sadly that's not what is logged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He's an extract from my log yesterday:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:49:06 Finished collecting mail from POP3 server
>>>>>>                           pop3.perry.uk, 1 messages accepted, 0
>>>>>> rejected
>>>>>> Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:49:06 0 messages deleted from POP3 server, 130
>>>>>>                           messages remain
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the risk of over-egging the point, it *doesn't* say anything
>>>>>> whatsoever about the sender of the one email.
>>>>>
>>>>> SMTP logs do have that information, though.
>>>>
>>>> You pick your email up by SMTP?? How quaint.
>
>>>  No, it gets delivered to my IMAP server by SMTP. As does yours,
>>> unless you
>>> happen to be using Microsoft Exchange. But even that hands off to other,
>>> non-Exchange systems via SMTP.
>>
>> All my email is transferred by POP or SMTP
>
>>>> You pick your email up by SMTP?? How quaint.
>
> If you do that, you won't be needing POP3!
>
>> and that is not at all unusual as I know others who do the same. It is
>> an internationally accepted means for handling email and is certainly
>> not quaint.
>
> It's almost impossible nowadays to send your own SMTP email direct to
> the recipient's server (which is the original internationally accepted
> way), as a result of various anti-spam measures.
>
Without a fixed IP address it's become impossible. Even using SMTP to
your email provider can cause problems due to misconfigured servers. My
local authority has one!

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:37:24 +0000
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:10:13 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:29:57 +0000
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <utrol0$12k17$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:54:08 on Mon, 25 Mar
>>>2024, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>and that is not at all unusual as I know others who do the same. It is
>>>>an internationally accepted means for handling email and is certainly
>>>>not quaint.
>>>
>>>It's almost impossible nowadays to send your own SMTP email direct to
>>>the recipient's server (which is the original internationally accepted
>>>way), as a result of various anti-spam measures.
>>
>>Back in the day when I used to set up sendmail on my linux boxes there was
>>an option to tell it to try port 25 directly at the recipients end rather
>than
>>the SMTP gateway given by the MX records. Of course that depended on the email
>
>>address containing a full DNS address Demon style, something that almost never
>
>>happens these days.
>
>All Internet email addresses have a full DNS address in the right hand side.
>Otherwise, the email wouldn't get there. What you're thinking of is where

Fair point. I should have said address of a specific machine rather than a
generic gateway address. Eg: google.com is not a specific machine.

In message <utskd1$19gbs$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:47:45 on Mon, 25 Mar
2024, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>> All my email is transferred by POP or SMTP
>>
>>>>> You pick your email up by SMTP?? How quaint.

>> If you do that, you won't be needing POP3!
>>
>>> and that is not at all unusual as I know others who do the same. It
>>>is an internationally accepted means for handling email and is
>>>certainly not quaint.

>> It's almost impossible nowadays to send your own SMTP email direct
>>to the recipient's server (which is the original internationally
>>accepted way), as a result of various anti-spam measures.
>>
>Without a fixed IP address it's become impossible.

Not sure why *sending* is hampered (any more than it is already by the
anti-spam measures). Receiving by SMTP to dynamic IP addresses used to
have various tools which facilitated this.

Of course you can't practically work-around carrier grade NAT, such as
many budget ADSL connections have.

ps A fixed email address is a dynamic one which the ISP agrees not to
change very often. I wonder if you meant Static?

>Even using SMTP to your email provider can cause problems due to
>misconfigured servers. My local authority has one!

--
Roland Perry

In message <utulnp$1rvmk$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:22:49 on Tue, 26 Mar
2024, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:

>>>>It's almost impossible nowadays to send your own SMTP email direct to
>>>>the recipient's server (which is the original internationally accepted
>>>>way), as a result of various anti-spam measures.
>>>
>>>Back in the day when I used to set up sendmail on my linux boxes
>>>there was an option to tell it to try port 25 directly at the
>>>recipients end rather than the SMTP gateway given by the MX records.
>>>Of course that depended on the email
>>
>>>address containing a full DNS address Demon style, something that almost never
>>
>>>happens these days.
>>
>>All Internet email addresses have a full DNS address in the right hand side.
>>Otherwise, the email wouldn't get there. What you're thinking of is where
>
>Fair point. I should have said address of a specific machine rather than a
>generic gateway address. Eg: google.com is not a specific machine.

Do you often email Google employees, rather than customers of gmail?
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 12:57:43 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <utulnp$1rvmk$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:22:49 on Tue, 26 Mar
>2024, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>
>>>>>It's almost impossible nowadays to send your own SMTP email direct to
>>>>>the recipient's server (which is the original internationally accepted
>>>>>way), as a result of various anti-spam measures.
>>>>
>>>>Back in the day when I used to set up sendmail on my linux boxes
>>>>there was an option to tell it to try port 25 directly at the
>>>>recipients end rather than the SMTP gateway given by the MX records.
>>>>Of course that depended on the email
>>>
>>>>address containing a full DNS address Demon style, something that almost
>never
>>>
>>>>happens these days.
>>>
>>>All Internet email addresses have a full DNS address in the right hand side.
>>>Otherwise, the email wouldn't get there. What you're thinking of is where
>>
>>Fair point. I should have said address of a specific machine rather than a
>>generic gateway address. Eg: google.com is not a specific machine.
>
>Do you often email Google employees, rather than customers of gmail?

It was an example you plank. However if you wanted to send an email to
roland@muppet.demon.co.uk there would have been no point sending it to
roland@demon.co.uk as it would never get there.

In message <uu1fkh$2u914$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:57:05 on Wed, 27 Mar
2024, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 12:57:43 +0000
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <utulnp$1rvmk$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:22:49 on Tue, 26 Mar
>>2024, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>
>>>>>>It's almost impossible nowadays to send your own SMTP email direct to
>>>>>>the recipient's server (which is the original internationally accepted
>>>>>>way), as a result of various anti-spam measures.
>>>>>
>>>>>Back in the day when I used to set up sendmail on my linux boxes
>>>>>there was an option to tell it to try port 25 directly at the
>>>>>recipients end rather than the SMTP gateway given by the MX records.
>>>>>Of course that depended on the email
>>>>
>>>>>address containing a full DNS address Demon style, something that almost
>>never
>>>>
>>>>>happens these days.
>>>>
>>>>All Internet email addresses have a full DNS address in the right hand side.
>>>>Otherwise, the email wouldn't get there. What you're thinking of is where
>>>
>>>Fair point. I should have said address of a specific machine rather than a
>>>generic gateway address. Eg: google.com is not a specific machine.
>>
>>Do you often email Google employees, rather than customers of gmail?
>
>It was an example you plank.

Oh, you do understand examples. Perhaps you could make more of an effort
to comprehend mine, rather than replying with gibberish.

>However if you wanted to send an email to
>roland@muppet.demon.co.uk there would have been no point sending it to
>roland@demon.co.uk as it would never get there.

Sure, but if I was a Demon insider, the latter should go to a specific
machine and ought to be delivered.

--
Roland Perry

In message <qaa30jh2g8mmp1jnpbt5829a9jiu1buoj8@4ax.com>, at 16:43:02 on
Mon, 25 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:29:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <utrol0$12k17$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:54:08 on Mon, 25 Mar
>>2024, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>
>>>and that is not at all unusual as I know others who do the same. It is
>>>an internationally accepted means for handling email and is certainly
>>>not quaint.
>>
>>It's almost impossible nowadays to send your own SMTP email direct to
>>the recipient's server (which is the original internationally accepted
>>way), as a result of various anti-spam measures.
>
>No; but unless you're using Exchange or webmail, your email will still
>travel from your local machine to your immediate upstream by SMTP.

Yes, but we've rather drifted away from the assertion about people
*receiving* email by SMTP. (I'm convinced the great majority is POP3 or
IMAP) - excluding Exchange and Webmail; being careful not to conflate
Exchange and Outlook, where mine (when I am forced to use it) collects
by POP3.
--
Roland Perry