4 ms·

> 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 whethe

> 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".

quietbritishjim 8mo ago
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.)
- hrimfaxi 8mo ago
  If registered mail is sufficient and that only requires proof of delivery/receipt, why would the same thing for email be insufficient?
  - quietbritishjim 8mo ago
    Email with proof of receipt (e.g. Outlook's read receipts) would be fine. But sending an email and hoping for the best doesn't meet that condition.
    - hrimfaxi 8mo ago
      A read receipt is not proof of receipt but proof that you read it. They are not the same thing. If your office receives registered mail but your secretary threw it away without you reading it, you're still legally served right?
      - quietbritishjim 8mo ago
        Agreed, but there's no delivered (but not necessarily read) receipt that applies to email so that was closest I could think of that counted. The overall point remains: sending an email, with no further evidence, does not count as proof of delivery (all the way to the inbox).
        hrimfaxi 8mo ago
        I see what you mean, and lack of a rejection email from the server is not proof of delivery either. I was looking to things like state process service laws. It doesn't seem like any type of receipt is required for electronic proof of service in California, for instance https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-ccp/part-2/title-14/chapter-5/section-1013b/ https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-ccp/part-2/titl...
        dataflow 8mo ago
        I don't know how laws work here but I can't imagine having adequate "proof of service" fully insulates you from all possible claims of non-receipt, especially electronically? Like what if the recipient was in a coma or on active duty in the middle of a war zone or something? There have got to be exceptions here to handle some cases of non-receipt despite proof of delivery, so the question of whether spam classification might be one such exception doesn't seem automatically invalid.
        thaumasiotes 8mo ago
        > Like what if the recipient was in a coma or on active duty in the middle of a war zone or something? There have got to be exceptions here to handle some cases of non-receipt despite proof of delivery If the recipient was in a coma, this question couldn't arise at all, because they wouldn't be able to use the service.
dataflow 8mo ago
> 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". You think she marked it as spam before reading it rather than the courier?
- thaumasiotes 8mo ago
  I know that's what happened. The courier isn't capable of marking it at all.
  - Izkata 8mo ago
    We're talking email. They are not only capable of it, but do it all the time.
    - thaumasiotes 8mo ago
      Your definition of "courier" is personal to you, but not compatible with anything that might be accepted by a judge. In this case, Tile sent the email, it was delivered seamlessly to the plaintiffs' designated agents, and then it was hidden from the plaintiffs by their designated agents. Those agents are not couriers; as far as the law is concerned, and as far as the law can be concerned, they are the plaintiffs. Tile has no control over who you make responsible for receiving your mail. As soon as they've gotten your mail to that person, they've done everything that can be done.
      - Izkata 8mo ago
        Which goes right back to what OP was saying, it's not taking into account how email actually works. The user did not mark it as spam, contrary to what you said earlier - they never even saw it. It's not even close to the same thing as the recipient tossing physical mail into the trash without opening it.

quietbritishjim 8mo ago

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.)

hrimfaxi 8mo ago
If registered mail is sufficient and that only requires proof of delivery/receipt, why would the same thing for email be insufficient?
- quietbritishjim 8mo ago
  Email with proof of receipt (e.g. Outlook's read receipts) would be fine. But sending an email and hoping for the best doesn't meet that condition.
  - hrimfaxi 8mo ago
    A read receipt is not proof of receipt but proof that you read it. They are not the same thing. If your office receives registered mail but your secretary threw it away without you reading it, you're still legally served right?
    - quietbritishjim 8mo ago
      Agreed, but there's no delivered (but not necessarily read) receipt that applies to email so that was closest I could think of that counted. The overall point remains: sending an email, with no further evidence, does not count as proof of delivery (all the way to the inbox).
      - hrimfaxi 8mo ago
        I see what you mean, and lack of a rejection email from the server is not proof of delivery either. I was looking to things like state process service laws. It doesn't seem like any type of receipt is required for electronic proof of service in California, for instance https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-ccp/part-2/title-14/chapter-5/section-1013b/ https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-ccp/part-2/titl...
        dataflow 8mo ago
        I don't know how laws work here but I can't imagine having adequate "proof of service" fully insulates you from all possible claims of non-receipt, especially electronically? Like what if the recipient was in a coma or on active duty in the middle of a war zone or something? There have got to be exceptions here to handle some cases of non-receipt despite proof of delivery, so the question of whether spam classification might be one such exception doesn't seem automatically invalid.
        thaumasiotes 8mo ago
        > Like what if the recipient was in a coma or on active duty in the middle of a war zone or something? There have got to be exceptions here to handle some cases of non-receipt despite proof of delivery If the recipient was in a coma, this question couldn't arise at all, because they wouldn't be able to use the service.

dataflow 8mo ago

> 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". You think she marked it as spam before reading it rather than the courier?

thaumasiotes 8mo ago
I know that's what happened. The courier isn't capable of marking it at all.
- Izkata 8mo ago
  We're talking email. They are not only capable of it, but do it all the time.
  - thaumasiotes 8mo ago
    Your definition of "courier" is personal to you, but not compatible with anything that might be accepted by a judge. In this case, Tile sent the email, it was delivered seamlessly to the plaintiffs' designated agents, and then it was hidden from the plaintiffs by their designated agents. Those agents are not couriers; as far as the law is concerned, and as far as the law can be concerned, they are the plaintiffs. Tile has no control over who you make responsible for receiving your mail. As soon as they've gotten your mail to that person, they've done everything that can be done.
    - Izkata 8mo ago
      Which goes right back to what OP was saying, it's not taking into account how email actually works. The user did not mark it as spam, contrary to what you said earlier - they never even saw it. It's not even close to the same thing as the recipient tossing physical mail into the trash without opening it.