On 31 Oct 2018, at 12:53, Steve Dodd wrote:
The two recipient orgs here are actually a local govt department, and
a
state-funded charity. Would be interesting to see what a lawyer made
of
their "right" to randomly drop mail from taxpaying clients.
I am not specifically familiar with UK law, but a good lawyer here in
the US would control his giggling long enough to point at the safe
harbor provisions in federal law that let ISPs be as sloppy as they care
to be in filtering out junk as long as they are acting in good faith. I
don't follow the case law as closely as I used to, but for many years
there was a perfect record of such attempted cases being thrown out very
swiftly. Here in the US, you'd need evidence of MS or the receiving
parties intentionally targeting the specific senders or GMail users as a
whole in order to get anywhere. *EVIDENCE*, not an assertion or a guess.
The fact that some of the louder lawsuits against Spamhaus & Steve
Linford (who should be in UK jurisdiction...) were filed here makes me
think that maybe your laws have similar protections for ISPs and your
lawyers are better at discouraging hopeless lawsuits.
Trying to
imagine a parallel world where they randomly blocked phone calls based
on
an opaque algo applied to the caller-id. Also, if "unusual"
user-agents are
being scored down, I'd think that might have accessibility / DDA
implications. But that's probably can of worms not to open here, right
now
:)
I would bet on the MS service agreement indemnifying MS against
liability for any special non-filtering obligations of government or
charitable agencies and disclaiming any implied warranties of service
quality. How binding those terms would be in the UK is a question for a
UK lawyer.
In principle, any entity with a domain name could run their own email
and fully control every detail of filtering. That's costly to do well.
Choosing MS as a provider reduces cost and most organizations have no
concept of what email service quality differentiators might exist, so in
general a lot of space is allowed for "innocent mistakes" even when they
amount to laziness and cost avoidance.
--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Available For Hire: https://linkedin.com/in/billcole
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
