High Court approves service of a lawsuit by email | The Register
This case hinged on whether or not they’d been served.
High Court approves service of a lawsuit by email | The Register
The e-mail address used was info@…
And the e-mail never reached the right parties. The complainant had conversed with the company through other addresses before, but used the info address when sending the communcation about the lawsuit.
Why am I talking about this?
Make sure all e-mail addresses are monitored, so no important mail gets ignored. I’ve seen postmaster mailboxes go unchecked for years, so I know stuff like that happens.
John MacKenzie comments on the case in the news story, that companies should monitor addresses like admin@ and info@. I’d like to counter that: Never create those addresses at all. They’re spam magnets. Make sure you don’t use the “usual” addresses, and you’ll get less spam. But also make sure mail to those addresses are rejected, so they don’t end up in some mailbox somewhere that nobody knows about. That’s especially true of qmail with vpopmail. The system automaticallly generates a postmaster account for each domain.
You’ll need postmaster and abuse addresses that work. But those could be diverted to the server’s postmaster. In Postfix that’s easy: Just use virtual for that. Redirect postmaster/abuse mail for all domains to one mailbox.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
This case is a travesty to Justice, and such a case would have never won in the US. How absurd and totally retarded is it to consider email at the same level as a in person summons or registered mail? This is totally ludicrous!
I finally agree with one of your points you made. I too would strongly advise not to use such obvious spam bait emails like, admin, info, sales, webmaster, etc. If you must use these idiot names, then add some numbers after them, like admin101, info344, sales455, etc.
I still can NOT believe this case actually turned out the way it did.
I wonder if this court would also believe Elvis faked his own death?
Hilarious!
February 7th, 2006 at 3:02 am
This wasn’t a court, it was an arbitration.
And I seem to remember a case in the US where some communication between the court and one of the parties had disappeared. Also e-mail communication. I’m winging it from memory here. I think the court lost it, because some parties had received the e-mail, and some hadn’t, and because the e-mail system was brand new at the time.
I can’t find it right now, so take what I’m saying with a grain of salt.