Well said, well put, I agree to get off UK law and back to the point.
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: Jim Lyon [mailto:jimlyon(_at_)exchange(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 2:54 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com; Chris
Haynes;
IETF MARID WG
Subject: RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged
messages
This thread has devolved into a fascinating discussion of
arcane points
of British law, but it misses the fundamental point:
A reasonable use of SenderID is to use it at SMTP time, and
to refuse to
accept forged mail. If you refuse to accept it (by giving an error at
end of DATA), you won't generate a bounce. The MTA that was
sending the
mail might or might not generate a bounce, but that's his problem, not
yours.
In fact, most of the forged mail is sent by specialized spam
engines or
virus propagation engines. These engines won't generate bounces,
they'll just give up and go on to the next victim.
So, deploying SenderID should result in fewer bounces, not more.
-- Jim Lyon
-----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 11:17 AM
To: 'terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com'; Hallam-Baker, Phillip;
'Chris Haynes';
'IETF MARID WG'
Subject: RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged
messages
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.
Where is the Mens Rea?
The UK obscene publications act is a criminal offense, the issue is
whether the action is criminal, not whether there is a civil
liability.
What the computer 'knows' is not relevant to Mens Rea, only
individuals
and corporations are subject to criminal law.
The last time an animal was prosecuted under English common law was
when the citizens of Sunderland hung a monkey as a spy during the
Napoleonic wars. The only occasion I am aware of in which an inanimate
object was put on trial was before the Norman Conquest when a statue
of the Virgin Mary was convicted of murder and is believed to lie in a
grave that can be seen from my parent's house.
Sure you can find some really obscure offenses if you dredge
up obscure
parts of English law. That does not mean that there is the slightest
chance that a Home Secretary is ever going to allow a prosecution.
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>