Email system provision is unregulated in the UK.

Cycrow

no need to even get a book, you can get a step by step howto guide that tells you what to do, all you have to do is follow it and you will have a fully functional server.

vofs007

debitcardmayhem wrote: »

No one is forcing anyone to accept the terms and conditions, the user has the right to not accept them, what is the point of this thread.

If you do not accept the T and Cs you cannot use the service.
One of the points of this thread is to make email users aware of the problems of the unregulated email situation in the UK.

debitcardmayhem wrote: »

What sort of dispute are you talking about that either needs legal action or regulation.

A previous poster suggested legal action as a substitute to regulation.
It is not a viable alternative IMO to regulation.

Two dispute examples that need regulation:

1. Email service suffers from compromised accounts due to the provider's failings. Users suffer varying degrees of distress and loss.

Provider despite frequent requests refuses to inform users of the cause of the failure and whether a suitable solution has been found.

2. Email provider changes the way they handle email without informing users, leaves the system as if it has not changed, and does not update documentation or help files. The change results in some emails being deleted without users being aware of this. When confronted with this, the supplier confirms this is the case but refuses to take any action to correct it.

These examples are not hypothetical.

I have just spotted this:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/shopping/2014/03/how-should-consumer-complaints-be-handled-the-government-wants-to-know

securityguy

In each of those examples, how much were the "victims" paying for the service? Nothing, right?

If you want an SLA, and recourse, pay for it. Free is best efforts. You're dead right: if you don't like the terms and conditions, you shouldn't use the service. Email provision isn't a natural monopoly, doesn't require public assets (like spectrum), there's no evidence that it's a cartel and it isn't distorted by any monopsony problems. So if you think the market needs something different, stop whining and either start a company and run your own email to your own satisfaction.

No one has signed your petition in the past 2 days. Oddly.

vofs007

securityguy wrote: »

In each of those examples, how much were the "victims" paying for the service? Nothing, right?

In both cases the victims were paying for the service.

wealdroam

vofs007 wrote: »

In both cases the victims were paying for the service.

Are you sure? They were paying for email?

Or were they paying for access to the internet?

securityguy

vofs007 wrote: »

In both cases the victims were paying for the service.

Why so coy? Tell us the operators involved.

vofs007

There are two main issues in this thread

1. The need for regulation so that consumer complaints can be dealt with by an ombudsman.

2. The impact of regulation on other aspects of email systems.

There as been little discussion on 1. but most consumers will be in favour of it.

The general attitude of posters on 2. has been that they are against it.

The reasons for this have been unconvincing and can be summarised as

a) Not possible to regulate.
b) Sufficient competition to make it unnecessary.
c) Problems can be solved by setting up your own email system.
d) Would stifle innovation.

securityguy

"The reasons for this have been unconvincing"

Given the petition still only has 24 signatories, so no-one has signed it in the ten days since you started the thread, I think complaining other people's arguments are unconvincing is a trifle hubristic. If "most consumers will be in favour of it" (why? do they have many problems with email that a lengthy complaint to an ombudsman would resolve?) how come they aren't flocking to sign?

debitcardmayhem

securityguy wrote: »

"The reasons for this have been unconvincing"

Given the petition still only has 24 signatories, so no-one has signed it in the ten days since you started the thread, I think complaining other people's arguments are unconvincing is a trifle hubristic. If "most consumers will be in favour of it" (why? do they have many problems with email that a lengthy complaint to an ombudsman would resolve?) how come they aren't flocking to sign?

This petition has 24 signatories yet it has been going since at least August 2013 that's 3 per month, and it closes on 17/04/2014.... so as per the OP's words

There as been little discussion on 1. but most consumers will be in favour of it.

simple maths there are only between 25 and 47 consumers.....

Trinitrotoluene

I manage the e-mail systems for hundreds of small businesses, our systems process millions of e-mails per week.

I really think that this is a none issue. For a start, the e-mail market is completely open anyway so if a consumer or a business is not happy they can simply move to a different provider. I'm struggling to see the basic issue.

Now then, if you want something that really should be forced, have the government publish the IP ranges for their Outbound SMTP servers. I have literally lost count of the amount of times one of our clients have had a HMRC e-mail slip in that is fake, or e-mails from other government providers that are exceptionally difficult for spam filters to detect as spam. HMRC don't even have an SPF record, if they did nearly all that type of spam could be stopped immediately.