Eh.
Sendgrid isn't a mailbox provider. Holding them to that standard of things
isn't the right way of looking at it.
For an Email Service Provider (like Sendgrid), the headers likely do have
the information to find the outgoing job where the actual messages were
built and there will be
On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 5:50 PM yuv via mailop wrote:
>
> > Not law, documentation. RFC5321 describes the state of SMTP, as of
> > 2008, sorta. How it was working best then, to the degree that the
> > editor and authors could reach consensus. The changes from 2821 to
> > 5321 are clarifications,
If you want to get THAT pedantic about it, so is sending an email. After
all, I can usually get info on the person's anti-spam solution, what MUA
(other than the web interface) they used, and often the IP address they
used to send the message via headers.
I suppose that you COULD make a case that
I'm not going to dispute that the law is dumb (because it certainly is),
but Prof. Goldman misses the mark on the spam filtering issue, I think. If
he mentioned new Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code Sec. 321.054(1) ("the provider is
authorized to block the transmission under Section 321.114 or other
I'm going to preface this email by saying that I do, in fact, run an
abuse desk. I'm the director of the policy enforcement team for my
employer, an ESP that everyone knows. I'm not going to mention them by
name because anything that I say here is based upon my own thoughts,
opinions, and
There's not much that I can say about this issue other than this:
1) Your second Pardot sample link gives an access denied error.
2) As in all such instances, appropriate measures have been and will be
taken with regard to relevant Pardot & Salesforce policies. As much as I
would love to pull an
