> 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. ... JG -- 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.