Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(April 1996)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: more on mail addresses
From: "Lack Mr G M" <gml4410 @ ggr . co . uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 13:45:17 +0100
To: Mike . Jones @ unifiedtech . com (Mike Jones), Firewalls @ GreatCircle . COM, michael @ memra . com
Cc: auampdrv @ ibmmail . com
In-reply-to: Mike . Jones @ unifiedtech . com (Mike Jones) "Re: more on mail addresses" (Apr 4, 8:04am)
References: <199604041304 . IAA14946 @ samadams . unifiedtech . com>

On Apr 4,  8:04am, Mike Jones wrote:
>...
> In fact, from a human factors point of view, it seems likely that
> "non-obvious" (a better term might be "user hostile") mail names are
> *more* likely to cause misdelivery of mail, because it is less
> obvious if one has mistyped an address.

   You seem to be assuming that "non-obvious" ids are independent of each other
and that as a result it might be easy to mistype one id into another.  What
about a scheme where it is *impossible* to get from one id to another without
making at least 3 mistypes?  At least what would happen then is that you will
get the message returned with "no such user".

   Of course, if your mail system allows you to *validate* local users before
you send the mail as well then most of the mis-sendings disappear too.


References:
Indexed By Date Previous: split dns question
From: rex @ staff . cs . su . oz . au (Rex di Bona)
Next: Re: RAS and technical people
From: johns @ oxygen . house . gov (John Schnizlein)
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: more on mail addresses
From: Colin Campbell <sgcccdc @ citec . qld . gov . au>
Next: Re: more on mail addresses
From: dengland @ sis . com (Dave England)

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com