I'm not a fan of either the OOOs or the lack of sender names. But I've been concerned about the quality of the list experience for some less experienced members. Some of the list's greatest minds are not necessarily the list's most tolerant minds, and have at least claimed to have blacklisted everyone who has let an OOO slip through. In my opinion, that hurts the community more than missing the sender name. Blocking the OOOs at least alleviates that phenomenon. That said, I do hope we can have the best of both worlds.
Bill Songstad -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:24 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Name of sender Dan, <begin feedback> THIS SUCKS </end feedback> I would rather see who it's from that have no OOOs. I agree with WHOEVER said it earlier it takes away from the community feel. I feel like my virtual friends are now just anonymous entities floating out there I cyberland. I'm sad. Andy _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Name of sender True but this does prevent any ooo's back to the sender. Doesn't everybody have a sig in place? (maybe not for replies) So... I'm going to leave the setting as it is for a little bit. You guys keep discussing Exchange related issues for the time being. Later today I'll revisit this. Dan Btw, I usually get the Lyris lists via RSS and not via email. On 12/27/07, [email protected] < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote: But we don't see the sender anymore ! GuidoElia HELPPC ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
