Rather than anonymising (which would probably just lead to a section 8
refusal), one thing we could do in your case is to close the St
Margaret's request to new responses. Any email sent to that address
would then either end up in the holding pen for the team to manually
assign to the right thread, or be bounced back to the authority as
undeliverable, depending on which option is picked. Choosing the latter
might be enough to make them check the address a request has been sent
from (or at least email team@ to complain our email is bouncing).
The system automatically does this to request threads after a set amount
of time has elapsed since the last response, but obviously this won't
happen in this case as they keep replying.
Regards,
Helen
------
Helen - WhatDoTheyKnow.com volunteer.
On 16/03/2012 11:21, paul perrin wrote:
+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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]> could be sent to
[email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sender: developers-public-bounces+stephenbooth.uk
<http://stephenbooth.uk>[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:39:17
To: mySociety public, general purpose discussion
list<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Reply-To: "mySociety public, general purpose discussion list"
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: mySociety public, general purpose discussion
list<[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> On 16 March 2012 07:58, Seb Bacon <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> FYI, every outgoing email already says "Please use this email
address
>> for all replies to this request: [email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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/helen%40whatdotheyknow.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
