Ian Eiloart wrote: > > --On 25 August 2006 17:26:06 -0600 Sherwood Botsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >>Once a >>week or so, I go through this, adding some names to the blackhole >>list. (As a school we have a high turnover. I forward for a year >>after they leave, then junk anything else.) > > > Don't do that - reject it. Otherwise people will think they're being > ignored. Important notifications could go missing, and your school could > -in some rare circumstances- find itself in legal hot water. Legal > notifications that are rejected by your server are not considered > delivered. Notifications that are black-holed can in some arbitration cases > be considered proper legal notification. >
smtp is not, ordinarily, a means of communication with inherent standing as far as 'legal notification' is concerned. Far too much can go awry, though message + intentional, manual, responding confirmation is 'good enough' for most courts, absent a challenge by/against one or more of the involved parties. That said, I agree that it is better to reject smtp traffic for folks who are no longer in the current user community. ;-) Bill Hacker - retired International Record Carrier & 'nailed up' Private Networks mavin - critters which *MAY* have inherent legal standing, though not always, even then.... -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
