Beartooth wrote,
| And if we could have a pool, my bet on the number of
| replies I get, under the Net (never to the list!), thanking me for
| saying so, would be three to five.
Tooth, you didn't consider that we changed the clocks back today in North
America and many on this list have an extra hour to kill.
Seriously, my take on it is that the RFC(2)821 return address is proper for
reactions to receipt, while the RFC(2)822 reply address is proper for
responses to content.
It is a difficult situation. The bounce has to go to the list administrator,
the refuser can't redesign the bounce to go the poster and has no right anyway
telling the poster not to post, the list administrator probably has no cause
to silence or boot the poster, and the list administrator cannot be held
responsible for implementing personal feuds and keeping the disliked poster's
articles from being sent to the refuser. (What if the refuser wanted to
switch to digest -- should [s]he get a special edition without the dislikee's
posts? What if the refuser visited the list archives and got offended that
the dislikee's posts are visible there?)
The only solution I see is for the list administrator to tell the refuser to
get a webmail account or such elsewhere, off AOL, where the filtering
capabilities allow silently trashing posts from any other members the person
dislikes, and to resubscribe then; in the meanwhile, the refuser's Mail
Controls settings are toxic, and his/her AOL address -- but not him/her as a
person -- cannot be on the list. There have been a handful of times in my own
history of running lists that I've asked a subscriber to find email service
elsewhere: (s)he was welcome on the list but his/her site's MTA configuration
or policies were not.
Of course, the refuser won't budge, so the administrator has to apply whatever
the standard policy: N bounces and a subscriber's address is deemed invalid
and the subscription is closed.
References:
|
|
