jgreco at ns.sol.net
Sun Jan 10 20:01:21 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.
People send me all kinds of stuff I've absolutely no interest in all the
time. I have no idea how I'd tell the difference between "sender was too
lazy/dumb to figure out I would have no interest but sent it anyways" and
"sender mistakenly sent it to me."
> 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...
Yes, that's a problem too. Perhaps this simply needs to happen.
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
More information about the NANOG