IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Asrg] Soundness of silence

Seth <sethb@panix.com> Tue, 16 June 2009 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <sethb@panix.com>
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 B07243A6A91 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:34:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
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 CxJ3eJUUWod3 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:34:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from l2mail1.panix.com (l2mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.75]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04ED23A6A49 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.1.73]) by l2mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2225A12B for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:33:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E233E38EAE for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:32:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by panix5.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 756) id D6BA224221; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:32:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Seth <sethb@panix.com>
To: asrg@irtf.org
In-reply-to: <4A37D79D.90508@tana.it> (message from Alessandro Vesely on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:34:21 +0200)
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>
Message-Id: <20090616193235.D6BA224221@panix5.panix.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:32:35 -0400
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: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:34:08 -0000

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
> SM wrote:

> What unacceptably affects reliability is that I could claim I never 
> received them since they ended up in the spam folder.

You could claim you never received them because you want to claim
that, independent of reality.

>> It's unlikely that all creditors will resort to sending a 
>> registered letter or a fax because of that.
>
> They'll eventually have to, if they get no acknowledge.

Courts very seldom accept email as sufficient notifications.  (When
they do, it's typically from them to lawyers practicing in that court,
where the lawyer is told in advance that email from the court had
better be acted upon.)

Bill aren't sent certified snailmail now.

Seth

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email