--On 26 August 2006 20:05:59 +0800 W B Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. No, not ordinarily, and not as far as court cases are concerned. There is, however, recent UK court ruling that an arbitration case would stand despite the defendant not having attended. The defendant claimed they'd not seen the email notifying them of the case, and that the email had been discarded as spam. > 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.... -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex -- ## 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/
