Slashdot Mirror
Are You Being Served? Don't Open That Email!
An unnamed reader writes: "A federal appeals court has ruled that legal documents can be served by email.
Since the party had no physical address, the court ruled that email was a viable option.
So, before you open that next email, you might want to consider if it's something you might want to avoid! And it wouldn't be spam..."
I use hotmail for a reason :)
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
How will they confirm the person actually recieved it?
You can send email with a return receipt requested, however, you are typically prompted to send the acknowledgement. Supposedly you may not be looking at the email when this prompt comes up and you might accidentally agree to send one.
Its also conceivable that the sender could look at your mailserver's logs to see if you downloaded the message, but that doesn't necessarily prove that you have read it.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
Maybe by using those lamo "read receipt" messages that outlook sends. Unfortunately for lawyers, (and for non-tech-savvy people) most geeks turn them off.
graspee
You've been served.
If they request a return reciept, just click "no" to giving them one (requires little configuration).
Welp, that solves that problem.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Guess it's time to get an email address on a non-US server. They can't send a US court jury duty
request to a non-us email address, can they?
If you order something online, you have a fixed period (usually 7 days) within which you are allowed to change your mind and cancel your order. This cancellation can take place by postal mail, telephone, or by email "to the last known address" of the merchant.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Sheesh - how hard can it be? They're both registered in bloody Las Vegas already ...
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc (RIOSPORTS3-DOM)
1023 Cherry Road
Memphis, TN 38117
US
Domain Name: RIOSPORTS.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Wilkins, Bobby (BW1169) hwilkins@HARRAHS.COM
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.
1023 Cherry Rd
Memphis, TN 38117-5423
(901) 537-3785 (FAX) (901) 820-2570
Billing Contact:
Howard, Anika (AHU21) anhoward@HARRAHS.COM
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.
One Harrah's Court
Las Vegas, NV 89193-8905
702-407-6456 (FAX) 702-407-6500
Record last updated on 14-Jan-2002.
Record expires on 23-Feb-2004.
Record created on 23-Feb-2001.
Database last updated on 21-Mar-2002 02:57:00 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.HARRAHS.COM 12.104.204.36
NS2.HARRAHS.COM 12.104.204.38
Registrant:
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc (BETRIO2-DOM)
1023 Cherry Road
Memphis, TN 38117
US
Domain Name: BETRIO.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Wilkins, Bobby (BW1169) hwilkins@HARRAHS.COM
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.
1023 Cherry Rd
Memphis, TN 38117-5423
(901) 537-3785 (FAX) (901) 820-2570
Billing Contact:
Howard, Anika (AHU21) anhoward@HARRAHS.COM
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.
One Harrah's Court
Las Vegas, NV 89193-8905
702-407-6456 (FAX) 702-407-6500
Record last updated on 14-Jan-2002.
Record expires on 23-Feb-2004.
Record created on 23-Feb-2001.
Database last updated on 21-Mar-2002 02:57:00 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.HARRAHS.COM 12.104.204.36
NS2.HARRAHS.COM 12.104.204.38
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
Until you can confirm the receipt beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't think this will become a widespread practice. How hard is it to forge a bounced message?
Anyway, undoubtedly if you do have a physical address, it will be used instead. The case mentioned in the article seems to be an isolated one.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Opening email,
I realize she found me,
Child support sucks ass.
From: Judge133838201@courtcentral.cc
+++ L@@K +++ YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED _,.'``'-.,_,.-'``'-.,_,.->> THIS IMPORANT SUBPOENA!!!!!
Just delete it. Turn off your preview pane, too.
Most of us have physical addresses, so this doesn't matter to the rest of us.
So, lets make the story more shrill, lets just infer that opening any email might be a binding legal document.
Sheesh!
It's a novel legal argument, that certianly has some problems, but generally used it's not, and most certainly won't become widely used either.
How about leaving sensationalism to the Weekly World News, the Sun or the National Inquirer, and just post stories without the whining "the sky is falling" prose?!
Cheers!
So I can legally send a notice to a spamming company that serves as legal notification if they do not list a phone number or physical address, and it will be backed by this precident.
I love it when a ruling can affect something intelligent, especially when the ruling itself isn't that smart.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
Now hundreds of people are hiring lawyers and showing up in court on dates they were never expected for summons that were never issues.
There are reasons why papers must be served in person; so everyone on both sides knows it happened for real. Summons by regular mail is bad enough.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
... you accessed the page the email was on...
there again, prove the hotmail account is mine! i have several bogus accounts...
What happens if you set a rule to auto-delete anything like this, and then you get a real summons?
Well, it *is* a summons, so you actually have to acknowledge receiving it. Presumably, if you never get the thing because of deleting it, then the plaintiff would have to pursue other means of sending it to you.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
during the initial Bernie Shifman exchange several months ago, he asked for someone's address for legal contact. Anyone else catch what I'm fearing....?
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
The Good Thing is that an email address with attached legal considerations brings more power and greater legal definition to the community of internet users. In the way ButterFlyWings and StrangeAttractors this could impact Bad Things like Spam. The courts are really just coming up to scratch with the burgeoning legal hassels of the internet. As a Canadian I would think in a country like America with a very proactive judiciary this could ultimately force a more stanardized set of laws perhaps in favour of the enduser. Either way these issues will make their way into the courts and call for more legislation. Ah for the days of the WildWest.
heuristic algorithm seeks stochastic relationship
Its also conceivable that the sender could look at your mailserver's logs to see if you downloaded the message, but that doesn't necessarily prove that you have read it.
IANAL, but wouldn't downloading the message be enough proof of delivery. Just because you don't read the summons doesn't excuse you.
If an attorney servers me with papers, they have been delivered whether I read them or not.
I see a couple of problem-
The act of a mail user agent receiving the email, does not equate to the intended individual receiving it. Nor does an unauthenticated user. The only way this makes sense is if the intended recipient uses some form of biometric authentication.
I am making an assumption that the entity in question is in fact a human and not a virtual entity. As long as we are dealing with people, we should maintain the same high level of bioauthentication that we use today. Handing a subpoena to the identified individual relys on human based bioauthentication. That has been the legal standard. Not being able to find the person has not been an excuse to serve a subpoena without this level of bioauthentication. I don't believe that it is permissable to deliver a subpoena via the telephone.
I'm still waiting for a bioauthentication scheme as ubiquitous as human recognition...
-tpg
... online restraining orders?
Food for thought... "dont come within 2 subnets of this server under penalty of law"
As a part-time legal secretary, I assure you that it is the easiest thing in the world to forge a court document and stick a government return address on an envelope.
(I can also assure you that there is little point to doing this unless you're looking for the free room and board of jail).
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
Just send out a TEX formatted letter to 100 people informing each person that you are taking them to court. Maybe 2 people will be able to read the letter and show up to defent themselves, 10 may write back to tell you they coun't read the attachment, but the rest are all yours !!!
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
An important aspect that has been as of yet unmentioned, is what format were these documents sent in? If they were sent in a proprietary format, is the recipient required by law to purchase software to decode the document?
Hmm... I wonder what the implications of something like this are on auto responders. I use TMDA to autmotically respond to any emails that I get from people that I don't know. I wonder if an auto response constitutes being served.
Hmmm...
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
IANAL, but I work for one.
Serving someone by e-mail is probably the legal equivalent of serving someone by newspaper. Yes, if the court is entirely unable to locate somebody, they can serve them as a "last resort" on one of the back pages of the newspaper. (Come on, someone has to have seen those). I believe the laws are set up in this case so that if a person fails to read (or be told about) that summons, the court has met its obligation and that party is considered to have defaulted.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
"U.S. District Judge Philip M. Pro had allowed the Las Vegas business to use e-mail to serve legal documents because no physical address could be found."
As no physical address was available, this seems like a not so absurd option. However, what if they had a mailing address and the folks just did not want to be bothered to walk over and serve the docs in person? What are the conditions under which email is appropriate?
If you don't receive a bounce, is that proof that the defendant was served? If so, then you may as well just toss the documents out the window and hope the breeze carries them to their destination. If they aren't returned to you by Divine Providence, then you can assume the defendant was served.
There has been enough erosion of due process already. This is tantamount to giving plaintiffs a license to manufacture summary judgements. If the defendant doesn't show because he was never served, then a summary judgement is the likely outcome. The plaintiffs have every incentive to take this ball and run with it, and no incentive to refrain.
The flipside of course, is that this will streamline the docket quite a bit.
Edith Keeler Must Die
So lets assume that somehow they can prove that the message was actually opened and viewed. How does this mean that it was actually *me* that read it? Is there really anyway to consistenly prove that it was in fact me that read the message, and not my kid brother or some dude that hacked my account? It seems like it would be too easy to sniff the password to an email account, send a summons to it and view it. So the question is, how can they prove that the person who i was intended for is actually the one that opened it? I see how common sense would say this is a dumb question, but legally this seems like it would pose a very interesting dilemna.
Side note: They're claiming a trademark on RIO SPORTS? Against a company based in Brazil? WTF is the court thinking?
Sounds like a case for procmail, some keyword scans of the body, /dev/null for delivery, and a nice EXITCODE=67 status! :-)
1) In the "real world", you can serve legal papers by a couple of methods. Registered (return receipt) mail (or courier), local county Sheriff, an officer of the court. This provides that the person getting the papers is actually the person that should be getting the papers. On the Internet, the person reading the email may not necessarily be the person to contact for the serving of documents.
2) E-Mail (and its address) can be faked. Though in the "real world" it can as well, it's not as easy.
3) E-Mail can be intercepted and modified. This isn't even that tricky to do ... all you need is access to a mail server.
I could go on for a while here ... but let me just say that because the courts said that it can be done, doesn't mean that it should.
#include <std\disclaimers.h>
Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.
All they need to do is select "request return receipt" in Microsoft Outlook.
/var/spool/mail/fred without altering it in any way? We'd better make Outlook the law!
And hope that the recipient is also using Outlook and lemmingly click's "yes" when asked if the return receipt can be sent.
What? You say that pine doesn't send return receipts? You say you can read
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
Well, you can play a step further and claim stupidity. Don't say "No, i didn't receive nor read an email summons to court on April 14, 2002", just say "what email?"
X-Subpoena-Checker-Version: SubpoenaAssassin 0.15
X-Subpoena-Report: 9.9 hits, 6 required;
* 1.1 -- BODY: Refers to you as 'the first party'
* 4.5 -- BODY: Contains many words like 'whereas' and 'aforementioned'
* 2.0 -- BODY: Text is in ALL CAPS and poorly formatted
* 1.1 -- BODY: Includes a link to a reputable law firm
* 1.2 -- OTHER: Looking through your files, and it appears you've been BAD
Not everything for which you may be summoned to court is a bad thing. My brother serves papers for various lawyers in NY, and every so often while visiting, I would go with him if he had a tricky paper to serve. On several occasions, the papers were "come to court and collect your inheiritance" type papers, where the people actually welcomed him in and offered food+drink.
Were the legal system to start contemplating e-Service of paperwork, these "warmfuzzy" services could be first served electronically, as their degree of repudiation ("I never got served") would be extremely low.
I'm curious why so many posters seem to think this is a Really Bad Thing, or a Really Stupid Thing. Are we all just eager to stay one step ahead of the law?
I for one think this is a Very Good Thing.
1) It's a big step toward legitimizing legal transactions online.This is something that needs to occur for the internet revolution to relaly take hold. The ability for people to make binding agreements virtually would usher in the next generation of e-business. Got an e-summons? Get an e-lawyer! If you can legally serve someone with an email, how long before you can represent someone online?
2) Of course, there are a lot of security issues to work though, but that's good to. Why? Jobs for geeks.
3) They're going to be able to serve a process against this scam artist. That's always nice.
Truth is, if you're actually being served a process, either someone bad is after you or you've done something wrong, like skip out on child support. Making virtual process serving possible doesn't make it easier to file lawsuits, it just makes it easier to let people know about them.
Howard Dean for president
No. FOr example my mail program downloads the mail messages but discards about 90% of them as spam and I never see them.
Sig is taking a break!
And hope that the recipient is also using Outlook
Ummm...return receipt isn't a Microsoft standard:
RFC 1891.
Click here or here.
Enlarge your subpoenas - GUARANTEED!
fortunatly, I was able to break the alien language just in time to relize it was a cook book.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Osama Bin's e-mail address? We have been having a little trouble finding him at home..
The truth shall set you free!
No, it just says someone downloaded the message to a computer. My wife and I use the same email account, for instance.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The Adobe PDF format seems to be widely accepted by the legal community- many of the rulings that have been posted on slashdot were available in only .pdf format.
Considering that adobe offers a free PDF reader for every relevant operating system- including linux- your point is moot. No purchase is required, anyone with the connection to receive email can download a reader
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Claimant has a valid trademark dispute
Defendant is not reachable, most likely on purpose
Defendant does have an email address
So you send the mail as a last ditch effort
and then hold a trial in absentia.
How is that not fair?
I'm thinking of what happens when the recipient of the e-mail summons has a spam filter in place which flags it as being spam? I could well imagine a case where a summons would list explicit samples of the material for which the recipient is charged, and these samples could trigger the user's and/or ISPs spam filter. Consider the bold text in this example.
The court could truthfully state the summons was sent. The "recipient" could truthfully claim s/he never received it.
I'm NOT claiming this would be a valid way to claim non-receipt of the summons; only that this is an entirely possible scenario.
Worse, still, is someone attempting an [im]practical joke on an unsuspecting user while they are away from their computer -- set up private spam filters in their e-mail program to delete e-mail containing: ("Federal" OR "State") AND "court".
With April 1st approaching, I suspect this has given a number of people some interesting ideas for April Fool's Jokes. ;^)
It's a bad/stupid thing (depending on your perspective) because this ruling is effective with TODAY'S technology. That means that there won't necessarily be any evidence that the notice was really served, that it was secure, etc. Do you really trust POP/IMAP/HTTP enough for this purpose? Do you really? This probably has implications for contracts too. I would be very careful about this, or you'll get what you wish for (example below).
You: "Your honor, I am not bound by this contract because this email did not come from me. It was forged."
The judge: "Prove it."
You: [Blank stare.]
It would be pretty easy to drum up a whole stack of lawsuits based on forged mail. Hell, you could fake contracts of all sorts and pretend people owe you something in the hopes that they'll pay you something just to go away and not have to show up in court.
I doubt any self-respecting law firm is going to use this as their primary means of serving papers anyway, despite the ruling.
Also, think of this: if the party in question is so elusive that you are totally unable to serve them in person, then what real means of enforcement do you have in dragging them to court? So maybe you can get their site shut down? What if they're not the hosting company? What redress really occurred then?
No sir, I don't like it. Between this and e-voting, I smell real trouble.
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
The defendant never said he never got the documents. In fact, his lawyer obviously did get the documents somehow.
He was 1) actually notified, 2) actually represented, and 3) trying to hide behind some hypertechnical fig leaf. He was trying to tell the courts that because he hadn't been physically whacked with rolled up piece of ink-on-dead-tree, that the courts were powerless.
Would he have been happier losing the domain name because the complaint was published in the Miami Herald or the like? Good grief. He was a loser messing with everyone who got whacked. Looks good to me.
What's the status of logging on POP servers? As best I know there isn't any, hence the only "proof" that you got the email would be the combination of the SMTP logs showing the mail was received at your ISP, and the fact the mail wasn't on disk any more.
Anyway, could always "steam the letter open" using POP's TOP command.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
This is not a surprise if you actually read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. FRCP 4 (f) says (in relevant part) (italics added):
... may be effected in a place not within any judicial district of the United States:
...
Unless otherwise provided by federal law, service upon an individual from whom a waiver has not been obtained and filed
(1) by any internationally agreed means reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those means authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents; or
(2) if there is no internationally agreed means of service or the applicable international agreement allows other means of service, provided that service is reasonably calculated to give notice:
(A) in the manner prescribed by the law of the foreign country for service in that country
...
(C) unless prohibited by the law of the foreign country, by
(i) delivery to the individual personally of a copy of the summons and the complaint; or
(ii) any form of mail requiring a signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court to the party to be served; or
(3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement as may be directed by the court.
Plus, under FRCP 4 (d) (2) (b) the defendant has a duty to avoid costs of service if a waiver of service is requested "through first-class mail or other relaible means."
The touchstone of whether service of process comports with due process is whether it is a method reasonably calculated to give notice under the circumstances. Our office regularly files cases requesting emergency authorization to demolish buildings that are in an imminently dangerous and hazardous condition and we provide notice by fax or by leaving messages on voice mail or by posting a notice on the door of the building. Under the circumstances that someone may be killed by a falling building if something is not done quickly, that is always sufficient notice under the circumstances.
In this case, the defendants were in a foreign country, at a concealed address, and the only known method of providing notice was via e-mail. Under many state laws, service by publication (those little ads in the back of the newspaper) is effective and constitutional. Certainly service via e-mail to the address provided by the defendant is more reasonably calculated to give notice than publication in the Law Bulletin would be.
This is yet another case of somebody seeing a high-tech buzzword and thinking it's hot news when it's really something that people have been doing for years.
I can just imagine companies that sit there all day mass mailing anyone with a trademark remotely similar to their own and threatening them with legal action. Or how about the RIAA mass mailing threats of legal action against every mp3 using person they can find on the net?
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
So the message is HTML, and contains a web bug to track the opening of the mail.
So what if someone has their preview pane turned on. The bug gets triggered, but they are not there.
What happens to the burden of proof in this case? Does it remain with entity doing the serving, or does it fall on the the entity being served?
Blogging because I can...
"It looks like you are frantically trying to erase the record of your having been electronically served papers. Would you like help with that?"
visit the hwky website for a lyrical genius infusion.
They don't have to find you. If it appears that you are unavailable, intentionally or otherwise, and the plaintiff has made a serious effort to contact/locate you, you can be served by publication. Which means that if the court thinks you are in Los Angeles, CA, then all they have to do is put a small add in the classifieds (public notices) in a major LA paper, and then you've been served. Regardless of whether you've ever been in California or not. And yes you will by default if you don't show up for your court date.
The new AOL email notification!
"You have subpoena"
A con artist (read telecom provider or spam mailer) could send you an email authorizing them to suspend your anit-slam rights, and then trigger the authentication themselves by just making the HTTP request from another computer.
They'd have to prove that you, and only you, were capable of having knowledge or record of the authenticating URL. On the Internet, that means everything from certification that their software is bug-free and uncracked to certification that the packets weren't sniffed on the Internet to gaurantee that your employer doesn't archive your email as company policy. That reaches a point of impossibility after a while.
This means there'll be more demand for public key encryption. They'll need my public key (and they can't give me a private key...it might be intercepted on the Internet) to prove that the request I send to them really comes from me. This would have to happen by me sending a response encoded with my private key.
What's this Submit thingy do?
Am I the only one who wants to see a summons sent to the Battle Creek, Michigan city servers... using a technically correct but problematic header? (I would like to the earlier /. article on ORBZ here, but it seems to have disappeared.)
I would love to see them try to threaten a Federal Court with a felony trespass charge because they're exercising their own sovereign rights to summon parties before the court. My money is on the federal courts in this case.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I am not a lawyer, but my father delivers subpoenas for a living to men who have not paid child support. I asked him in the past about people refusing to accept subpoenas when he hands them to them. He explained that telling the party of the subpoena is sufficient for the subpoena to be served, and all that is required is that he a) notify them of the subpoena, and b) make it available to them. Refusing to accept the subpoena, not reading it, dropping it, ripping it up, or even claiming you aren't the person the subpoena is supposed to go to, do *nothing* to cancel the fact that the process server has, in fact, found you and given you sufficient notice of the legal document. In fact, a process server can simply used the scattershot method: deliver subpoenas to your home, your work, your gym, your parents' home, your girlfriend's house, your past addresses, everywhere, and in most cases it is sufficient to shove it in the mail slot, leave it in the mailbox, put it inside the screen door, hand it to another family member or household resident, put it under a windshield wiper, etc. Such a subpoena is considered served. You have been given sufficient notice. The court would prefer you pay attention to that notice, but it's your loss if you don't. So claiming you didn't get or didn't read an email message which you did indeed receive is likely an insufficient argument in the eyes of the court, particularly if there's strong evidence that you do, in fact, use the email address in question.
I should add that contrary to what you might think, most of the people who are served subpoenas are apologetic and civil, even a little bashful about having to have someone official notify them of a legal matter related to their own mistakes.
Wordnik, a dictionary project which aims to collect
But the decision opened the door.
Picture this: the church of Scientology decides to nail you, for whatever reason.
They set up a court case, timing the service of process for some time you are not available, and would be unaware of the matter.
After not finding you in person, they serve up an e-summons to an email account you don't use much. Stipulated in the summons: if you don't respond, you automatically lose your case.
After a set period of time, you are informed that you have lost your house, your car, and maybe even your job, depending on many fake charges they managed to pile on you, because the judge automatically ruled you guilty of whatever BS they thought up.
My family, long ago, lost a civil case because the bailiff mispronounced our last name so badly that we didn't approach the judge. The plaintiff, although he knew we were there, swifty told the judge we were absent, and we lost the case by default.
Wonderful, ain't it?
... but good luck collecting a judgement if you can't locate assets or the people who own them.
No, no, no. This is not a sig.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
...with any entity that has no physical address or phone number. Never, ever, ever.
There's a name for these, coined by Keith Dawson of "Tasty Bits from the Technology Front" fame: "spampoena." He defines the word as follows:
I'd hoped that those two incidents would be the last that we'd see of this inappropriate method of delivering subpoenas. Let's hope it doesn't become standard.
-Waldo Jaquith
...other members of the jury selected from you address book.
- undoware.ca
DAMN - I'd mod you up if I had any points! :0
*I'm free!*
creation science book
This wasn't a default judgement with no response by the defendant. In the words of the Court, Thus, when RIO presented the district court with its inability to serve an elusive international defendant, striving to evade service of process, the district court properly exercised its discretionary powers to craft alternate means of service. All this really means is that ducking a subpoena that you know about ultimately won't work.
Imagine it....:
First, I want to say I like your sig.
Second, in Oklahoma, the police were always contacting people to say they had won a prize and they were to meet at the Myriad Arena on a certain day/time. At the announced time, they'd get up on the podium and call out a few names, sending those people (the innocents thrown into the mix) into another room where they could claim televisions and such. The rest of the people in the room were then arrested. This is a good method of picking up warrants, or so I'm told. Why not do something similar for serving people?
It's easy to stand out when the general level of competence is so low.
What? You say that pine doesn't send return receipts? You say you can read /var/spool/mail/fred without altering it in any way? We'd better make Outlook the law!
Working on it.
But I don't think this concept is unique to email. You can actually throw real dinkum physical mail in the trash and claim you never received it either.
When are people going to realise that most things you can do in the digital world are simply metaphors of things that can already be done in the analog world? Sheesh!
Why at this moment I'm downloading in my pants.
Hyuk Hyuk Hyuk!
Any more obvious insights to share?
"Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.
On three different occasions I've had 'Registerd /signature required mail fail.
One I was shipping a part to a company. They say they never got. I get back a return receipt with no signature. That was the United States Post Office.
One was a package sent to me Fed-ex. Was a pricy Optical drive. They left on my back door without any signature.
Just recently UPS did the same. Four new 120gb dirves left on backdoor steps. Even though it was clearly marked signature required.
Until there is a way to guarentee that the postal/package carriers do their part of the job nothing will change.
make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
If you download the message, then you recieved the summons. If you don't read it and/or don't open it, its your problem.
Based on your thinking, if a spammer sends you some kiddie porn with a subject of "Hey", and you don't (have time to) read it/or open it/or delete it before the police break down your door, then you're automatically a paedophile - even though you don't know what is in the email prior to them arresting you...
'sapientia potestas est'