3 ms·

Thanks for the advice. I know you mean well, but none of it applies. I do agree with you on principle. We've been doing this for over a decade and have learned

Thanks for the advice. I know you mean well, but none of it applies. I do agree with you on principle. We've been doing this for over a decade and have learned best practices. We also know what our customers appreciate and are very mindful of content, frequency, etc. But, you seem to be overlooking a key point, so I will state it for at least the third time: the problem was NOT the content, and it was NOT being marked as spam by recipients. Instead, we were erroneously classified by the service as sending to honeypot addresses and/or defunct addresses. So, your assumptions about our customers, newsletters, etc. are just not relevant here. >the third party has no responsibility to you. They have a responsibility to their customers... Their customers complained to us that they weren't receiving our emails, so they weren't serving their customers very well in this instance either. But, what you really don't seem to be getting is that they do have a responsibility not to harm us. That's why there is a legal cause of action known as "tortious interference". I sincerely don't know how to make that point any clearer. Perhaps researching that term a bit might help.

lsc 11y ago
>But, what you really don't seem to be getting is that they do have a responsibility not to harm us. That's why there is a legal cause of action known as "tortious interference". I sincerely don't know how to make that point any clearer. Perhaps researching that term a bit might help. Yes, yes, reading up on that is probably a good idea. I am not a lawyer... but in the case of a mail-filtering company blocking emails that their customers have asked them to block, they are harming the senders of those mails. That is a direct result of what their customers are paying them to do. Or ad-block programs- really, it's exactly the same thing; what the ad-blocker does for the user does harm the advertisers. There's many, many places in the free market where helping one side of a transaction hurts the other. That probably means that "tortious interference" is more complex than you are making it out to be. There are a lot of situations where helping one party necessarily hurts another, and helping one party over the other is generally not illegal.
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  Their customers are not paying them to harm legitimate senders from whom they wish to receive emails. It's unfathomable that you appear to see no dinstinction there. Neither is it "exactly" nor even remotely the same as ad blockers. >That probably means that "tortious interference" is more complex than you are making it out to be. No, it means that your analogies are invalid. Further, perhaps you should look up the term before musing about what it "probably means".
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

lsc 11y ago

>But, what you really don't seem to be getting is that they do have a responsibility not to harm us. That's why there is a legal cause of action known as "tortious interference". I sincerely don't know how to make that point any clearer. Perhaps researching that term a bit might help. Yes, yes, reading up on that is probably a good idea. I am not a lawyer... but in the case of a mail-filtering company blocking emails that their customers have asked them to block, they are harming the senders of those mails. That is a direct result of what their customers are paying them to do. Or ad-block programs- really, it's exactly the same thing; what the ad-blocker does for the user does harm the advertisers. There's many, many places in the free market where helping one side of a transaction hurts the other. That probably means that "tortious interference" is more complex than you are making it out to be. There are a lot of situations where helping one party necessarily hurts another, and helping one party over the other is generally not illegal.

unclebucknasty 11y ago
Their customers are not paying them to harm legitimate senders from whom they wish to receive emails. It's unfathomable that you appear to see no dinstinction there. Neither is it "exactly" nor even remotely the same as ad blockers. >That probably means that "tortious interference" is more complex than you are making it out to be. No, it means that your analogies are invalid. Further, perhaps you should look up the term before musing about what it "probably means".
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]