Mark explained,
> Just pointing out that the subscriber who makes use of a tool is not
> necessarily the one who should be thought badly of (i.e. rather than
> the tool's author).
It's not necessarily the author either. It could be the short-sighted
admin who installed it, assuming that all mail to company addresses is
personally directed to all addressees and that every message to an
employee on vacation must get a vacation response every time,
misconfigured the autoresponding software accordingly even though the
author's defaults were sensible, and then got some gullible executive to
order all employees to activate it when they are out of the office.
Then not only do the employees have no options; they don't know that the
software has maleficent shortcomings.
That's why I said that JC or any other list administrator should go
gently on a first-time offender. The autoresponding subscriber may have
had no choice. If it recurs during another absence, then either the
subscriber didn't or couldn't do anything about it. In the case of
"didn't," ban the jerk; in the case of "couldn't," ban the domain and
notify all subscribers at addresses in it that they're welcome to rejoin
from different accounts.
In my list administering days I ran into both situations.
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
