The 'Spam Filter Ate My Notice' Reasoning Convinces Court To Extend Deadline
from the but,-don't-think-you'll-be-so-lucky dept
I have to admit that I've been noticing a lot more false positives in my email spam filter lately. Fewer actual spam messages have been getting through, but a few too many legitimate emails have been getting caught. Apparently, I'm not the only one. A group of folks who were suing AIG, and lost on summary judgment, have successfully extended the deadline to appeal after claiming that they missed the initial notice (which indicated when they needed to appeal) because it got stuck in the spam filter. The court noted that this excuse has failed in the past on numerous instances, but because this was the only real evidence of a mistake, rather than a pattern of similar mistakes, it extended the deadline. However, it did "beat up" on the lawyers as well. So, generally speaking, it's probably not a very good excuse to use... but every once in a while it might just work.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: spam, spam filter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The Real WTF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Real WTF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Real WTF
So the question here should be "Why wasn't the idiot who sent this important notification via email fired on the spot?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Real WTF
Many states are heading (if not already there) the same way.
And most of the time it's not bad. But when it goes bad it goes very very bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Real WTF
That is not to say that services can't be constructed which facilitate reliable, confirmable document delivery over the 'net: they can. It's just that email isn't one of them; it's built on a protocol that's best-effort, no more. And it keeps getting more unreliable/unstable every year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Real WTF
Because courts do not require such notices to be sent certified mail, abuse of the system is common: pre-date the mail - even the date on the postage meter - and send it late. Obviously if you can prove they did this, you risk angering the judge. Therefore if you send it via email, you reduce the chance that the notice will be received or read, while still claiming that you sent the notice in a timely manner. If email gives you this edge over the postal service, you would naturally want to use email.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Email has advantages over snail mail, but the reverse is also true. My girlfriend lost a job offer because they fat-fingered her email address. USPS is much more tolerant of typos in the address, and if the guy down the street gets your mail by mistake, you still have a chance he'll get it to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
settings
And then after I started getting read requests from spam emails, I set outlook to never send a read request.
Email is not the proper way to send legal matters. They need to be followed up with a letter or a phone call to confirm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: settings
Roflmao.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are excuses, and then there are excuses
My point? That no proof is just that, no proof - you can't prove a negative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike says: "I have to admit..."
And on what evidence do you characterize lack of email delivery as an "excuse"? It may well be mere EXPLANATION.
Your lousy grammar and fuzzy thinking really detract from site value. *Editing* is the most important part of writing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike says: "I have to admit..."
An explanation, in this case, is an excuse. Playing with language isn't nice, especially when you're trying to be a dick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evidence?
"We sent an email" is not evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]