+1 I am happy to anonymous my requests - then they'll have no option other than to use the single email address provided.
It is none of the councils business whether I have asked about info before or not - councils should respond to the * request* not to the person who happened to have authored it. Paul /)/+) On 16 March 2012 11:14, Stephen Booth <[email protected]> wrote: > But the request isn't from WDTK, it's from a user of what do they know. > The fact that WDTK collates and presents the content of the mail should not > make be conflated with the request being from WDRK (IANAL, I'm approaching > this from a common sense point of view). If they applied that it would be > like saying that a reply to a request from [email protected] could > be sent to [email protected] and be legal as they are both hotmail. > In each case the 'company' is just acting as an intermediary between the > originator of the request and the recipient, WDTK is acting as a > specialised webmail service with added features and support for the end > user. > > Stephen > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange > > -----Original Message----- > From: Colm Howard-Lloyd <[email protected]> > Sender: developers-public-bounces+stephenbooth.uk= > [email protected] > Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:39:17 > To: mySociety public, general purpose discussion list< > [email protected]> > Reply-To: "mySociety public, general purpose discussion list" > <[email protected]> > Cc: mySociety public, general purpose discussion list< > [email protected]> > Subject: Re: [mySociety:public] Getting a bit t'd off with what do they > know... > > There is a legal precedent (Bernuth Lines Ltd) that ruled that any valid > email address at a company could be used for the service of documents. > > Although applying only to maritime arbitration cases, it would suggest > perhaps that any valid WDTK address might constitute a valid response. > > On 16 Mar 2012, at 10:24, Stephen Booth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 16 March 2012 07:58, Seb Bacon <[email protected]> wrote: > >> FYI, every outgoing email already says "Please use this email address > >> for all replies to this request: [email protected]" at the > >> bottom. Other ideas for user education welcome :) > >> > > > > Could the ICO be encouraged to view a reply sent to an email address > > other than that in the From: or Reply-To: headers of or specified in > > the body of the original emailed request as not being a reply, even if > > the authority believe or claim to believe it went to the same person? > > > > Stephen > > > > -- > > It's better to ask a silly question than to make a silly assumption. > > > > http://stephensorablog.blogspot.com/ | > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/stephenboothuk | Skype: stephenbooth_uk > > > > Apparently I'm a "Eierlegende Woll-Milch-Sau", I think it was meant as > > a compliment. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > developers-public mailing list > > [email protected] > > > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/colm%40truthmonkey.org > > _______________________________________________ > developers-public mailing list > [email protected] > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > Unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/stephenbooth.uk%40gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > developers-public mailing list > [email protected] > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > Unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/paul%40idltd.com >
_______________________________________________ developers-public mailing list [email protected] https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public Unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/archive%40mail-archive.com
