[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       postfix-users
Subject:    Re: easiest way to reject/process emails based on Return Path
From:       Jaroslaw Rafa <raj () rafa ! eu ! org>
Date:       2020-05-25 19:02:50
Message-ID: 20200525190250.GB9201 () rafa ! eu ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Dnia 25.05.2020 o godz. 12:59:30 yuv pisze:
> 
> The legal issue is NOTICE.  NOTICE is the fact that the recipient knew
> or *should have known* the content of the message.  Let me know if you
> want me to expand on the concept of notice.

You have explained it sufficiently in your message and I fully understand
your concerns about this topic. However:

> This is a conflation of the general case, and irrelevant to my concern.
> In the OWN SERVER case, the law will find that the recipient has
> willfully ignored the message and knew or should have known the
> message.
[...]
> If the OWN SERVER sends a 250 and discards the message, the user is
> both recipient and operator.  The law will find sufficient notice and
> the sender is protected.
> 
> In the general case, the user is the MTA operator and is not the
> recipient.

That's the difference between us. For you, the "own server" case is
irrelevant, as you think about general case. But you have in your very first
post stated that you run your own (ie. your company's) server. So all
further comments, advices and replies in this thread should be viewed in
context of runing an own server and only in this context! So for you, the
case of own server is irrelevant; for me - it's the only one that is
relevant to this discussion; all others are irrelevant :)

I would never advise anyone to do 250+silent discard as a third party, and
probably the person who advised you to do this wouldn't as well. But - as I
understand from your quotes above - it states no legal issue when done on
own server.

> The *ETHICAL ISSUE*, and the reason why I do not want to send a 250 and
> discard the message in the conflated scenario:  when I am the sender,
> and I am told 250, and that 250 cause damage to me because it is a lie,
> I am obviously not happy.  Which wise person said 'Don't do unto others
> what you don't want done unto you?'

But if you do it on your own server (I will still hold on to the only
relevant case ;)), it's practically equivalent to deleting a message without
opening it. Do we still remember that your original question was about
getting rid of superfluous Google Calendar notifications? You probably
delete them without opening. So if you set up a filtering rule that matches
them and only them - and deletes them before they reach your inbox - would
it be different in any way? What's unethical in this (in this particular
case ONLY)?

Again, I repeat: I would never advise to do it as a third party. Only as a
final recipient. That's a fundamental difference (at least for me).

> You work for home buyers that need mortgages.  You need to receive
> mortgage instructions from the lender.  The lender gives you two
> options:
> (a) use a proprietary platform that requires use of Internet Explorer
> (no Edge, no Chrome, no Safari, no Firefox) and Adobe Reader.  A
> typical fee of $30/mortgage is charged to you/your client 
> (b) use a fax; for which you/your client cover your side of the expense
> (receiving and, if necessary, printing).

Very strange scenario if I think about my country.

First: there is no such thing as faxing or emailing PDFs back and forth for
signature. Such documents would have no legal value. A fax copy is not a
document in legal sense; it's just an "image of a document", in similar
sense as a photograph or photocopy of a document would be. It can be a kind
of proof that a document exists (or existed), but it's not a document itself
(and as every proof, can be questioned in court).
And if you put a signature overlay from a different source onto a different
PDF file it may even be considered fraud, because it's no more an "image of
a document"; the image has been manipulated.
Of course, you can fax (or scan and email) a signed paper document just to
give the other party information that you signed it, but this is only an
information; only an actual paper document is a legally valid document.
So, legally valid documents can be signed only using two ways (of course
unless there's a previous contract between parties in place, which may allow
for different terms, eg. doing it online via website):
a) physically on paper. No faxes, no scans, no PDFs etc. If you cannot meet
with the other party in person to sign, you have to send the document via
snail-mail.
b) electronically (eg. in a PDF file), using a X.509 digital signature
issued by one of government-approved Certificate Authorities. Obviously you
cannot fax a digital signature :)

As for "your" lender, such a lender would most probably quickly go out of
business. No finance-related company here would think about charging for
using their Internet platform for processing loan application. That would be
a suicidal move. Nobody would borrow from them (unless you had no other
option because nobody else would want to give you a loan) if they charged
$30 just for use of Internet platform while the others aren't. One can just
imagine how much are they charging extra for other things.

And an Internet Explorer only platform? Do they still live in year 2000 or
what? One more reason to move to another lender.

Also less and less companies continue to have fax numbers, as almost nobody
is using them. So using a fax is often simply impossible.
-- 
Regards,
   Jaroslaw Rafa
   raj@rafa.eu.org
--
"In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there
was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub."
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]