Subject:
|
Re: Badgering emails
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:22:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3686 times
|
| |
|
|
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 02:59:45PM +0000, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > It's STILL not the users' issue to solve.
>
> Sorry, why not? I'm not clear on that really. If a user has a
> malformed or malfunctioning mail, why isn't that the user's issue to
> resolve?
#1 How would the user know there was a problem?
#2 Assuming the user knows there's a problem, how can he possibly fix it
if he doesn't control the mail server (or the ISP, or whever the
block is occuring)? Asking that HE change his email address because
YOUR current mailserver has been blackholed doesn't make sense to me.
#3 Is it reasonable to _require_ as part of the TOU that my email accept
and whitelist ANY address a LUGNET admin happens to use? I think the
requirement should be "Have a valid email address that you monitor"
and define valid as "can accept emails _sent_from_the_LUGNET_server_"
and possibly "whitelist @lugnet.com" addresses (though that really
shouldn't be needed).
Did that clear things up at all?
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Badgering emails
|
| (...) Not really, no. I agree that's the desired end state but that's not what the server does now, is it? I'm asking about what should be done NOW. (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Badgering emails
|
| (...) There's no faulting flowing from this direction, merely a statement that there's a problem at the user's end. (...) Sorry, why not? I'm not clear on that really. If a user has a malformed or malfunctioning mail, why isn't that the user's issue (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
54 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
