On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 mfidelman@ntcorp.com wrote:
> personally, I don't do anything in these cases - this is not unreasonable
> behavior for a vacation autoresponder,
It is unreasonable.
To use geek language: Consider how well it scales.
To use environmentalist language: Consider how sustainable it is.
To use economist langauge: Consider aggregate social welfare impact.
To use philosophical language: Consider Kant's categorical imperative.
All of that is saying that if everyone who is "out of the office" uses
software that behaves in what you call "not unreasonable" then consider
what happens with a list of 1000 where maybe 50 members are out-of-office.
> and personally, there are times that I post something to a list and want
> to know that certain people haven't seen it --
That may be the case for some small lists. On such lists you can ask
people to configure their autoresponders to specifically respond (to
individuals, once) to mail addressed to the list.
But since that is not the general case with most lists, auto-responders
should be configured properly.
Again, I point people to my rant on this topic:
http://www.goldmark.org/netrants/auto-resp/
> the impact on the list and the subscribers is minimal
Not if everyone who was "out of office" did it.
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
Hate spam? Boycott MCI! http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/anti-spam/mci/
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
