Thanks for the kind words. And the constructive criticism.
Some people write "grey," others "gray." I think it may be a British/
US thing.
Yes, any Internet user should understand those rules. But I was
writing for the manager who (a) arguably can establish those rules as
company policy ("...or you're fired!") and (b) cannot have her
minions comfortably say, "Boss, you're doing it wrong."
I've been trying to figure out how to get this seeded in the proper
places -- where the people who SHOULD see it WILL see it. Besides
just e-mail admin groups. It doesn't seem to be slashdot material,
does it? Or does it? Oh well... I'll be happy for anyone to spread
the word. (Besides, I like bragging to my boss about my pageviews.)
On Aug 9, 2007, at 6:26 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr wrote:
> Esther Schindler wrote:
>> Comments and corrections are welcome, particularly if they also
>> include praise. :-)
>
> It's an excellent article. You have obviously put in a lot of time
> and effort to extrapolate the myriad of issues as many of see them
> from different perspectives. Many judos to you for doing this - as
> I think it will help a lot of managers understand their admins better.
>
> Now for the constructive critiques:
>
> Graylisting should be spelled "Greylisting".
> True IETF standards are in STD (standard) documents. Most RFCs
> (but not all) are on a "standards track" to modernize or correct
> existing STD classified standards. But, not all RFCs are intended
> to be standards. Some are simply "best current practices" or BCP
> documents, or are still RFCs destined to be full BCPs. Some may
> disagree on my phrasing or perhaps my the notion completely, but I
> consider RFCs the templates and modifiers of existing or developing
> standards that guide the use and development of modern Internet
> technologies (as many STDs are relatively outdated to use as direct
> resources). When looking for the latest texts for standards-
> guidance, the latest superseding RFCs are *the* documents to refer to.
> As someone else already commented in the article comments sections
> (misconceptions and dealing with NDR "bounce" messages in
> particular), there are portions that should be understood by all
> users of email and not just management. The days of computer/e-
> mail naivety are over. People have to make an effort to learn a
> little and understand the tools they are using. These things
> should be reviewed with staff training - formal or otherwise.
>
> My $0.02 USD anyways. And again, a great article. I'm sure it
> will do some good!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Assp-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-user
