On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:05:20 -0500 David W Tamkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not necessarily the author either. It could be the short-sighted > admin who installed it, assuming that all mail to company addresses is > personally directed to all addressees and that every message to an > employee on vacation must get a vacation response every time, > misconfigured the autoresponding software accordingly even though the > author's defaults were sensible, and then got some gullible executive > to order all employees to activate it when they are out of the office. Right. That's why I escalate to unsubscribing and finally banning the domain in the case of companies. They members will either successfully exert clue-training on the admins, or as a group they are a source of more potential trouble than they are worth. > Then not only do the employees have no options; they don't know that > the software has maleficent shortcomings. Right, that's why you start with a warning. > That's why I said that JC or any other list administrator should go > gently on a first-time offender. The autoresponding subscriber may > have had no choice. If it recurs during another absence, then either > the subscriber didn't or couldn't do anything about it. In the case > of "didn't," ban the jerk; in the case of "couldn't," ban the domain > and notify all subscribers at addresses in it that they're welcome to > rejoin from different accounts. Precisely. > In my list administering days I ran into both situations. Also. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. [EMAIL PROTECTED] He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
