Re: [exim] spam acl condition syntax

Ian Eiloart wrote:

>
>
> --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.
>

Heard that before. All that case proves is that once in a very great while a UK
court acts as stupidly as a US one. Fortunately very seldom.

Google spamhaus and legal for a bogus 11 Million judgment in favor of a spammer
in a clUeleSs court.

Then the gloating perp posted the court docs on his website, allowing easy load
of his ~/24's into local BL here, just in case spamhaus DOES have to piull them
(not happening...).

Access to good case law, a few years of US law, and placing a good deal of trust
in the effectiveness of the team of Walther, Barretta & Eccheverria has kept my
legal fees under US$ 2,000 for a 62-year-total. (not counting real-estate
purchase & sale).

>> 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.
>

Dunno where you get an 'extra rope' analogy...

Who's ox is being gored? A spammer?

We look on spam as 'fraudulent conversion' (of our storage, bandwidth, and staff
time - to their ends).

Thieves they are also of fractional portions of human life. Billions of such.
Sounds like multiple counts of 'assault with intent to maim' to me.

Best,

Bill