TID: FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
RFC-X-No-Archive: Yes
TZUTC: 0100
CHRS: UTF-8 2
PID: GED+LNX 1.1.5-b20161221
MSGID: 2:280/464 60186ae0
REPLY: 1:229/664 c06d3f87
Hi Jay,

On 2021-02-01 15:34:24, you wrote to me:

 Wv>>  JH> Was the ENC flag intended for some other purpose?

 Wv>> The ENC flag isn't really a technical flag. It's more a statement the
 Wv>> node will forward encrypted mail.

 Wv>> In the distant past when this first became an issue, people were
 Wv>> afraid they would be held responsible for the content of the netmail
 Wv>> they forwarded.

 JH> Interesting.  So it was more of a liability thing.

Yes, sort of. But this was decades ago, when pgp was first introduced. So
nobody really knew what laws applied, and the differences between countries.
So some people choose the safe option.

 JH> I'm not sure about Europe, but the US has had a "Safe Harbour" law in
 JH> place for quite some time & thanks to the USMCA (the new "NAFTA") both
 JH> Canada & Mexico have those same protections (since July 2020).

I don't know the exact details but in general common carrier (telecom)
companies can't be prosecuted for the data they transport. But I don't know it
this applies to fidonet nodes.

Anyway I don't know of any legal problems in the history of fidonet for such
things.

 JH> Do we know of anyone still actively bouncing/droping encrypted netmail
 JH> today?

I don't. Maybe ask in an area like for instance FN_SYSOP, where you have a
bigger audiance for such matters.

Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
 * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
SEEN-BY: 1/123 90/1 105/81 120/340 123/131 124/5016 129/305 154/10
SEEN-BY: 203/0 221/0 226/30 227/114 702 229/101 424 426 664 1016 1017
SEEN-BY: 240/2100 5138 5411 5824 5832 5853 249/206 317 400 280/464
SEEN-BY: 280/5003 288/100 292/854 8125 310/31 317/3 320/219 322/757
SEEN-BY: 342/200 396/45 423/120 712/848 770/1 2432/390 2452/250 2454/119
PATH: 280/464 240/5832 229/426