Charles Gregory wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> There are other reasons not to do this, for instance legal ones.
Again, you are quoting arguments that favor SMTP reject. It is
better to
reject a mail, so that legitimate senders know it, rather than have
them
believe it was delivered when it was sent into a spam folder...
This is one of the stupidest arguments in this thread
Well, hey, now that we've got *that* off our chest....
NOBODY is "legally required" to accept e-mail. That is a crock of
baloney.
Well then it's a good thing I didn't say that, isn't it?
I never said YOU said it. Since clearly you didn't start tossing around
the term "legal" and you were arguing against it, why the hell are you
now deciding to defend such a stupid, idiotic, ignorant, & moronic usage
of the term now?
It is NOT "illegal" to break a contract.
It's called 'fraud'. Look it up.
No, sorry, it's NOT fraud. Fraud requires proving an intentional
misrepresentation. Breaking a contract does not imply that the
contract was entered into with an intent to break it.
As I said, the example would be a civil dispute, not criminal.
Ted
