Sorry for the typo, that should read:
Wrong. When you bounce it <NOT> knowing the validity of the
bounce recipient you have less liability then if you bounce it KNOWING that the
bounce
recipient is invalid.
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 1:06 PM
To: 'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'; 'Chris Haynes'; 'IETF MARID WG'
Subject: RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged
messages
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
Hallam-Baker,
Phillip
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 12:22 PM
To: 'Chris Haynes'; IETF MARID WG
Subject: RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces
from forged
messages
Suppose the original message, copied into the bounce,
contains pornography which is illegal under English law.
First off, there is nothing that requires you to copy
anything into the
bounce.
Providing that you are willing to accept the original email
LOST. Bounces are done to:
1) inform the sender the delivery failed
2) inform the sender WHICH email the deliver failed, where
the WHICH is best defined by including
the email so one can view the specifics of the email to deal
with the matter further
Secondly if it is an automatic process your liability would
be no greater
than it would be following original SMTP.
Wrong. When you bounce it now knowing the validity of the
bounce recipient has you have less
liability then if you bounce it KNOWING that the bounce
recipient is invalid.
There is no English law against 'pornography', the actual offense is
publication of obscenity.
Irrelevant, especially for many other countries, but even for
areas under "English" laws because
"publication" is not sufficiently concise in this context and
hence open to interpretation.
There is a whole rack of issues here, first publication on
the Internet has
been addressed in the English courts, there has to be actual
knowledge or at
the very least a constructive effort to avoid knowledge of
the contents for
publication to have occured. Then when you get into the obscenity
definitions you have a whole rack of further intent issues.
That may be sufficient for some to believe, but "ignorance is
no excuse" has been the big stick that
many courts have wielded time and again.
If you are worried about creating liability don't copy information.
If your "mail as reliable communication" means nothing to you, yes.