[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Full-disclosure] Fw: Returned mail: see transcript for details

Somebody please tell Research in Motion to add a postmaster account for the 
infamous T-Mobile wireless data service.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 04:26:26 
To:jasoncoombs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details

The original message was received at Sun, 13 Mar 2005 04:26:16 GMT
from engine89.bwc.prod.on.blackberry [172.16.148.120]

   ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
ald2003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    (reason: 550-Postmaster verification failed while checking 
<jasoncoombs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to mail.sourceforge.net.:
>>> DATA
<<< 550-Postmaster verification failed while checking 
<jasoncoombs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<<< 550-Called:   206.51.26.131
<<< 550-Sent:     RCPT TO:<postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<<< 550-Response: 550 5.1.1 <postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>... User unknown
<<< 550-Several RFCs state that you are required to have a postmaster
<<< 550-mailbox for each mail domain. This host does not accept mail
<<< 550-from domains whose servers reject the postmaster address.
<<< 550 Sender verify failed
550 5.1.1 ald2003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx User unknown
<<< 503 valid RCPT command must precede DATA


Reporting-MTA: dns; smtp04.bwc.na.blackberry.net
Received-From-MTA: DNS; engine89.bwc.prod.on.blackberry
Arrival-Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 04:26:16 GMT

Final-Recipient: RFC822; ald2003@users.sourceforge.net
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Remote-MTA: DNS; mail.sourceforge.net
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550-Postmaster verification failed while checking
        <jasoncoombs@tmo.blackberry.net>
Last-Attempt-Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 04:26:26 GMT
--- Begin Message --- 
Aditya Deshmukh wrote:
>>You've signed an NDA.
>>
>>What do you do?
>
>Revel all the info anonymously ?

Revealing all of the confidential information would be unethical.

Confidences must be protected, and secrets must be kept. And not out of fear of 
civil liability or personal bankruptcy, but because honor and integrity are 
essential ingredients in a healthy society.

The greater good is always served when individuals are free to decide for 
themselves, free from duress, what the right thing to do is in their unique 
situation.

Doing nothing would be immoral, and could place you in the position of being an 
accomplice to violations of SOX through your inactions.

SOX includes whistleblower protections, and a judge or jury ultimately has the 
power to affirm or reject the correctness of your actions or inactions in 
real-world situations.

Taking action may result in civil liability for your mistakes. Taking no action 
may result in criminal liability and the greater harm to all. Which is the more 
substantial risk? Which is more likely to be the correct decision? It is easy 
to see that all good men must assume civil liability in order to prevent 
criminal acts.

One of the key elements of the answer to the original poster's question is the 
necessity for the individual to decide which risk is the better risk for them 
to take according to their own beliefs and circumstances.

We have legislation like SOX for the express reason that our peers and our 
government wish each of us to take more seriously our role in complex white 
collar financial crimes.

SOX helps to tip the scales in favor of full disclosure. Its very existence 
should cause people who are wrestling with the conflict of having civil 
obligations and liabilities under contract, versus their equally-important 
ethical and moral obligations to help create the greater good for all, resolve 
this conflict in favor of taking action rather than taking no action.

Legislators and courts can, and will, provide greater clarification for us on 
these very questions in the future.

For now, the rule is to do what you believe is right, and get advice from legal 
counsel but don't forget that they are just making an educated guess about how 
a jury or a judge will respond, or interpret the law. Your attorney is not you, 
and it is not their decision to make in the end.

Sincerely,

Jason Coombs
jasonc@xxxxxxxxxxx

--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://www.secunia.com/