At 1:04 PM -0700 4/9/2000, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
>There are one or two bogus-to-me assumptions there, though.
>
>Bouncing mail addressed to abuse@ or postmaster@ would constitute
>non-compliance (and remember, abuse@ is still a *draft* RFC).
Agreed. The other thing is that I'm not surprised that mail to an
AOL-internal help address bounced, since those people are supposed to
be helping AOL people. It'd be like e-mailing me at Apple to get tech
support (it won't work); that the external stuff is broken or
suboptimal doesn't magically mean the internal addresses should start
taking external mail.
>Autoresponding with the appropriate addresses (as long as they in turn are
>read) is compliant, though maybe not in the way you might prefer.
Yeah. As someone who's been supportive of AOL here over the years, I
have to admit I'm not thrilled here, and I tihnk they blew it. that
and $6.00 will get you a decent coffee at Starbucks...
--
--
Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar
and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'"
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
