On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 02:12:31AM +0000, David M. Wilson wrote:
> Take for eg. the confusion between envelope from, From:, and other types
> of headers that different MLMs treat differently. How can I know that my
> mails are getting through to london.pm without explicitly trying every
> combination of my subscribed address in each of the above headers until
> one of them arrives back in my mailbox?
Let's step back and ask "why do I need to test it?" Presumably since you
("one") have something to say. So why not just keep saying it until it
works? Why, purely from theoretcial standpoint curiosity, futz with
something until you have something actually useful to contribute?
In the same vein as "gee, the group seems quiet today. Is this thing
working?" type emails.
> Another debate that usually arises from such an e-mail is, have you ever
> considered the bandwidth you used up to flame him for sending the
> e-mail in the first place? Or how about the bandwidth I'm about to waste
> by posting this reply?
This is a pretty solid standpoint, IMO. And more generally an argument
against many things, like splitting lists etc: the resulant traffic
exceeds or at least approaches the originally perceived savings.
Having said that, discussions like this usually result in an overall
group position/consensus on the behaviour which contributes to group
"policy" and sense of social context and history. Specifically, it might
dissuade others from such emails in future :-)
Paul
--
Paul Makepeace ....................................... http://paulm.com/
"What is a trouble avoided? A cheetah, roaming the savannah."
-- http://paulm.com/toys/surrealism/
