Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email email@example.com
From: Kradorex Xeron (admindigibase.ca)
Date: Fri Jun 08 2007 - 10:32:00 CDT
On Friday 08 June 2007 08:04, Thierry Zoller wrote:
> Dear Kradorex,
> Oh now canada enters the game, somebody from russia pleae also comment
> on Luxemburgish law, awwwweessome.
> It is not logic, it's law (read: positive law). It applies to Mail
> only, get over it. It gives you legal ground to sue. Can you grasp
> the concept here?
Okay, if you want to go about it that way and use the law in this "game:"..
In that event: It should therefore be the user's responsibility alone, nobody
else's reguardless of departure reason (Fired, quit, etc) to tell the people
that the specified mailbox will be terminated. Furthermore, mail should be
dropped upon employee's depature, reguardless if the user made those
statements to those who he/she communicates with, as there would be nobody
else that has legal qualification to touch mail sent to that box, therefore
anyone not contacted who continues to send mail to the defunct address, too
bad. They may get notified later on, they may not, just continue dropping the
As long as the caretaking of defunct mailboxes is under someone else's
control, there will be "snooping" going on
So best option: Terminate account, delete all mail in the box and being
received for then on, have nobody take care of any defunct mailboxes. That
way, nobody could be exposed to privacy invasion lawsuits.
End of Problem.
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/