Re: [ietf-smtp] MTS-STS validation when MX host points to a CNAME, violating RFC 2181 § 10.3
2021-04-06 17:44:28
On 2021-04-06 23:33, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Look it up and quote chapter and verse, please. I don't see anything
of the kind. I do see wording in "my" enterprise documentation that
IMO suggests a required ability to send to working sites, but nothing
that requires Microsoft to provide a correct analysis of what is
broken at sites outside Microsoft's control.
[DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. The following is not legal advice. Even
if I was a lawyer, this discussion would not make me *your* lawyer, and
this would still not be legal advice. This is only my interpretation of
the law and opinion about some aspect thereof. Don't sue me if you do
something unreasonable based on what I said; I disclaim all
responsibility for your actions. Act at your own risk]
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/servicesagreement:
8. APPLICABLE LAW.
a. United States and Canada. If you acquired the application in the
United States or
Canada, the laws of the state or province where you live (or, if a
business, where your
principal place of business is located) govern the interpretation of
these terms, claims
for breach of them, and all other claims (including consumer
protection, unfair
competition, and tort claims), regardless of conflict of laws
principles.
b. Outside the United States and Canada. If you acquired the
application in any other
country, the laws of that country apply.
9. LEGAL EFFECT.
This agreement describes certain legal rights. You may have other
rights under the laws of your state or country. This agreement doesn't
change your rights under
the laws of your state or country if the laws of your state or country
don't permit it to do so.
Thus, the client has rights laid down in the agreement plus the rights
in the laws of the corresponding country. A service provider has
obligations laid down in the agreement and might have obligations set in
the laws of a corresponding country.
For example, local law here in Lithuania (Article 6.200 of the Civil
Code of the Republic of
Lithuania)[https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.245495]:
Principles of performance of a contract
* A contract must be performed by the parties in a proper way and in
good faith.
* In performing a contract, each party shall be bound to contribute to
and to
cooperate with the other party.
* The parties shall be bound to use the most economical means in the
performance of the contract.
* Where according to a contract or its nature, a party in exercising
certain actions is bound to make the best effort in the performance of
a contract, this party shall be
bound to make such effort as a reasonable person would make in the same
circumstances.
If a party (a service provider) of a contract is a professional in his
field with extensive experience, also due to the nature of a contract
(e-mail services), although it not reasonable to require the provider to
examine internal third-party server errors or misconfiguration, it's
reasonable to expect the provider to know why it cannot provide the
service (why it fails to send out a message on its end), and if
requested, to explain those reasons to a client (sender). Showing
specific errors (as opposed to generic ones) suggests the service
provider's choice to provide a piece of detailed information. Being a
professional, the service provider that shows detailed but misleading
information (a client usually being a weaker side of the contract and
that's especially true when it is a natural person) cannot be considered
as acting in a good faith while performing the contract.
That's my view.
--
Regards,
Kristijonas _______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [ietf-smtp] MTS-STS validation when MX host points to a CNAME, violating RFC 2181 § 10.3, (continued)
- Re: [ietf-smtp] MTS-STS validation when MX host points to a CNAME, violating RFC 2181 § 10.3, Kristijonas Lukas Bukauskas
- Re: [ietf-smtp] MTS-STS validation when MX host points to a CNAME, violating RFC 2181 § 10.3, John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] MTS-STS validation when MX host points to a CNAME, violating RFC 2181 § 10.3, Kristijonas Lukas Bukauskas
- Re: [ietf-smtp] MTS-STS validation when MX host points to a CNAME, violating RFC 2181 § 10.3, Bron Gondwana
- Re: [ietf-smtp] MTS-STS validation when MX host points to a CNAME, violating RFC 2181 § 10.3, Kristijonas Lukas Bukauskas
- Re: [ietf-smtp] MTS-STS validation when MX host points to a CNAME, violating RFC 2181 § 10.3, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [ietf-smtp] MTS-STS validation when MX host points to a CNAME, violating RFC 2181 § 10.3,
Kristijonas Lukas Bukauskas <=
- Re: [ietf-smtp] MTS-STS validation when MX host points to a CNAME, violating RFC 2181 § 10.3, John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] MTS-STS validation when MX host points to a CNAME, violating RFC 2181 § 10.3, Kristijonas Lukas Bukauskas
- Re: [ietf-smtp] MTS-STS validation when MX host points to a CNAME, violating RFC 2181 § 10.3, Sam Varshavchik
- Re: [ietf-smtp] MTS-STS validation when MX host points to a CNAME, violating RFC 2181 § 10.3, Kristijonas Lukas Bukauskas
Re: [ietf-smtp] MTS-STS validation when MX host points to a CNAME, violating RFC 2181 § 10.3, Hector Santos
|
|
|