upvote

points

by dataflow5 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby handoflixue5 hours ago|
next
[-]
>> You'd think a case hinging on a crucial email being sent into spam would at least mention that fact more than once?!

> Broad did not locate the Oct. 2023 Notice until January 2024, when she affirmatively searched for the email and found it in her spam folder.

I think it's rather relevant that she affirmatively searched for and found the email?

reply
upvoteby nickff4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Unless the user’s e-mail was controlled by their counter-party, what folder the message ended up in seems to be irrelevant to me. The user is the one who selected the e-mail inbox service provider, and has some degree of control over message categorization.
reply
upvoteby noirscape2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That does sound like there's an exploitable element there isn't it?

Statistically speaking, most people use one of the biggest email providers, which use their own models to detect spam (or even quietly drop messages). If you're doing an unpopular TOS change, why not set the mail up to still be RFC compliant but in such a way where the mail isn't going to be allowed through by any of the providers. Then you can just claim the problem is userside.

For example, the Message-ID header is technically not required (SHOULD rather than MUST), but as a spam detection measure, Gmail just drops the message entirely for workspace domains: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46989217

reply
upvoteby hrimfaxi46 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Okay and if you did that only for that message your intent would be really easy to prove.
reply
upvoteby thaumasiotes3 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> The court seems to be completely disregarding that it was misdelivered into spam.

Spam categorization isn't a delivery issue. The delivery is the same whether you, upon taking delivery, toss the message into a bin labeled "spam" or one labeled "inbox".

reply
upvoteby quietbritishjim2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I guess it's an instance of a more general principle: sending an email doesn't guarantee it gets to the user's inbox, never mind that it gets read.

Even if you are OK with the idea that a user can be presented updated TOS with no option to disagree (I don't, but put that aside for a moment), it should still require a mechanism that actually guarantees (or at least verifies) that the user has seen that the terms are updated. Email is not that. (An unskippable notice on login to a web service would be.)

reply
upvoteby hrimfaxi44 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
If registered mail is sufficient and that only requires proof of delivery/receipt, why would the same thing for email be insufficient?
reply