he.net down/slow?

Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Sun Jan 10 17:26:33 UTC 2010

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 08:54:09 CST, Joe Greco said:

> The use of the words "intended recipient" are also extremely problematic;
> by definition, if it is addressed to me, I can be construed as being the
> "intended recipient."  If I then turn around and forward it to you, you
> are now also an "intended recipient."  Nice, eh.

They're trying to make their mistaken use of "reply all" our problem rather
than theirs.  Or selecting the wrong 'J. Smith' from their contacts list.
Or any number of other dumb-ass moves we've all seen.  Unfortunately, there's
no good a priori way for the recipient to know that the sender has committed
a major faux pax, except by actually reading the content.

Of particular interest - what happens if they've botched their intended
recipient, and as a result the mail bounced into my Postmaster mailbox?
At that point, I'm pretty obviously *not* the intended recipient, and the
sending individual better be ready to pay for the service they've actually
requested in their boilerplate.  I mean, I'd hate to incur costs complying
with their wishes and then have to sue them to recover said costs...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20100110/37a69fee/attachment.sig>

More information about the NANOG mailing list