RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages

[<terry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Fax: (416) 441-9085


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> terry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx]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.
>