Customized SMTP server trumps stupid, made up email EULAs

Javier sez, "Russell Coker has published his Conditions of Sending Email, which are his rules for accessing his SMTP. If you send him an email, he has preemptively disclaimed any unilaterally made-up claims in your .sig:"
The conditions of sending mail to my server are now as follows:

1. A signature will in no way restrict my use of your message. You sent the message to me because you want me to read it (it was not mis-sent, my mail server does not accept mis-addressed mail). I will keep the message as long as I like either deliberately or because I forgot to delete it.

2. I reserve the right to publish any email that is threatening (including any threats of legal action). I don't like being threatened and part of my defence is to publish such threats at an appropriate time. Anyone who is considering the possibility of threatening me should consider when their threat may re-appear.

3. I reserve the right to publish any email that is abusive/profane, is a confession of criminal or unethical behaviour, or is evidence that the sender is a liar or insane.

4. I reserve the right to forward all amusing email to my friends for their enjoyment.

My mail server will now provide the URL of this page to everyone who connects at the first stage of the SMTP protocol. When a mail server continues the connection that indicates acceptance of these conditions.

Link (Thanks, Javier!)

See also: - the anti-EULA
Crazy EULA makes you agree to a bunch of other EULAs


  1. So. . . it will be a war of competing EULAs, I’d like to see how that would play out in court if it ever got that far: “But your Honor, by reading my email he was agreeing to forfeit all rights. . . ”

    counter: “Objection, your Honor, by sending me that email he was also forfeiting all rights.”

  2. I call this session of KiddyGarden Court to order. Council, you may proceed:

    My EULA can beat up your EULA!
    Can not!
    Can so!
    Nuh uh!
    Yuh huh!
    (ad infinitum, or until one combatant bites, kicks, or scratches the other, thus invoking the Principle’s Office Act)

Comments are closed.