Author: Ian Eiloart Date: To: W B Hacker, exim users Subject: Re: [exim] spam acl condition syntax
--On 13 October 2006 20:23:59 +0800 W B Hacker <wbh@???> wrote:
>
> > There's also a potential legal liability issue.
>
> With X.400 maybe.
>
> ;-)
>
> But smtp is a 'no guarantees possible' best-efforts protocol.
Not according to at least one UK court judgement, where an email (a
notification of arbitration) was accepted then not acted upon. The
recipient claimed that notice had not been properly served, when it
discovered after the fact that the arbitration had gone against htem. The
judgement was that if the company had rejected the email, notification of
an arbitration would not have been properly served. Since the company
accepted the email, but ignored it, the notice was regarded as properly
served.
> Anyway - user choice, so no different than someone's junk filter or
> manual decision to delete unread (or read).
Yes, but why give people extra rope to hang themselves? Better to reject
what you're not going to deliver - if possible.
