On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm sorry, but _actions only happen when a majority of the list sees it_. >> >> See: comex's ratification scam from a while back. >> >> You're too late. > > Hold on here. Now we get to the point where a legitimate communication > is held up. Does this violate R101 participation rights? -Goethe
First of all, "a majority of the list sees it" isn't the standard; if a message is sent via a public forum and it reaches one player but not all of the rest because their email servers happen to be down, the other players should have heeded Rule 478 and ensured they could receive messages. To consider such messages to not be published would probably violate R101. On the other hand, in a case where the sender of the message didn't take the reasonable step of sending email from an address that was subscribed to the mailing lists, I don't think eir rights are being violated by bouncing the message. It's trivial to subscribe the new address to the list and of course e retains the right, if not the ability, to send from eir previously-subscribed address. The PerlNomic case is probably a bit more questionable; PNP was sending messages from its registered and previously-subscribed address which stopped being delivered because the previously-valid address had become bogus. Arguably that's an R101 violation, however unreasonable it would be to demand that the Distributor accept email from a bogus address.
