> On Jul 16, 2016, at 11:11, Erwan David <er...@rail.eu.org> wrote: > >> Le 16/07/2016 à 19:04, Jan Ceuleers a écrit : >>> On 16/07/16 17:42, Yuval Levy wrote: >>> Imposing the onus on the SMTP server operator is like imposing the onus >>> on gas stations for fueling vehicles used in criminal endeavors. It >>> does not fly because the gas station can't possibly know what the user >>> will use the vehicle for, other than (probably) driving. >> You have ignored the OP's statement that he is a radio amateur, and that >> the FCC prohibits the use of encryption by radio amateurs. This is about >> ensuring that the spectrum that radio amateurs are licensed to use (a >> public resource) is not subverted for private purposes. Hams are >> supposed to be a largely self-policing community; encryption prevents that. >> >> As an individual radio amateur, the OP needs to ensure that he complies >> with the FCC rules if he wants to keep his license. If he cannot >> configure his SMTP server in a compliant manner he should not offer an >> SMTP-based service that transports messages across the ham frequencies. > Wouldn't this mean that data transport on those frequencies is forbidden ? >
I agree. Encryption does not imply TLS. A message could be encrypted while still being plain text. For a sufficiently low level definition of encryption, it could even be encrypted while appearing to be unencrypted. For instance, if two people agree that certain words means something different than their commonly accepted meanings, they could communicate in a form that appears to be plain language yet have a different meaning to them than to someone who intercepts it. But the latter example would also apply to voice communications in the amateur bands so since you can't be sure that even voice is unencrypted, I guess they aren't legal either. -- Larry Stone lston...@stonejongleux.com
