Re: [Asrg] Soundness of silence

Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> Wed, 17 June 2009 10:45 UTC

Return-Path: <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BBAB3A6E2F for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.573
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R5gDaNcRmR-F for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk (lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.14.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B44E83A6BDD for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.134.43]:60781) by lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KLDOUV-000KJM-9T for asrg@irtf.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:23:19 +0100
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:22:27 +0100
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
Sender: iane@sussex.ac.uk
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <56EA24C8EBF22F3C536EBC56@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4A37DC8D.7070309@computer.org>
References: <4A329E38.9010609@tana.it> <4A36904E.8040908@billmail.scconsult.com> <4A3781D4.3020303@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20090616060804.02e285c8@resistor.net> <4A37D79D.90508@tana.it> <4A37DC8D.7070309@computer.org>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01speZAhv4B2fzBO1kHr0lDAx1GA+6XBW9JwI=; token_authority=support@its.sussex.ac.uk
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Sussex: true
X-Sussex-transport: remote_smtp
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Soundness of silence
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:45:32 -0000

--On 16 June 2009 10:55:25 -0700 David Wall <d.wall@computer.org> wrote:

>> Yes, but everybody else has the right to consider me a fool for that.
>> What unacceptably affects reliability is that I could claim I never
>> received them since they ended up in the spam folder.
>
> I am sure the law varies around the world, but in the U.S., aside from a
> few specific areas like turning off utilities, evictions and court
> orders, the sender is presumed to have complied with their requirements
> to notify you if other agreements allow for electronic communications and
> they made a good faith effort to send to your last known email address.

In the UK, there's case law saying that a notification of legal arbitration 
proceedings (in accordance with a contract) was deemed served because the 
recipient's email server accepted the email. So here, your on much safer 
ground if you reject an email than if you accept it but don't read it.

> Most such agreements put it on you to ensure your current email is on
> file and that you obviously agree to accept such email from them.
>
> The fact that you missed it, didn't read it, your spouse or child deleted
> it or it was spam filtered will be irrelevant.  The same goes for old
> fashioned postal mail -- it doesn't affect their legal standing for
> sending you the notice even if you claim the mailman lost it, your
> mailbox was hit by thieves, your spouse/kids tossed it, etc.
>
> When absolute reliability is required, most will use services
> (email/web-based or postal or even hand-delivered) that require a
> signature, ID check or other the like.  Web tools often have
> "return-receipts" that work when you read it after logging in for
> example, and the old "you've been served" works well for various legal
> issues.
>
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



-- 
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/