Re: Message Confirmation?? Let's get the facts straight

Subject: Re: Message Confirmation?? Let's get the facts straight
From: "Matthew B. Hicks" <matt -at- UNIDATA -dot- UCAR -dot- EDU>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 08:43:05 -0600

On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, Jim Grey wrote:

> Sue Gallagher (sgallagher -at- expersoft -dot- com) said:
> >I, personally, would hate to see this happen. It would slow down the
> >response time, so we wouldn't get the answers to those "I need help
> >by tomorrow" posts anymore. If there were a time limit on confirmation,
> >as there is for subscription confirmation, all those Friday messages
> >would bounce and need to be resent (and reconfirmed) on Monday, and...
> >Well, suffice it to say our dynamic and energetic list just wouldn't
> >be the same.

> Ditto. Ditto, ditto, ditto.

Nein, nein, nein, nein, nein! My experience with the listserv is that it
takes it no more than a minute or two to respond to commands, so it should
take no longer than that to look at the message and send a copy of it back
to the return address. You should be able to recognize your own message in
a fraction of a second and give it an OK (however that is done) and send
it on its way. It might mean your message goes out to the list 5 minutes
later than it would have before, but that's about it.

I'm not saying I'm in favor of doing this (though I'm not opposed to it
either), I'd just like to see the discussion based on a clear
understanding of the situation. Eric, please correct me if I'm wrong about
the timing of this.

-Matt Hicks
matt -at- unidata -dot- ucar -dot- edu
Owner of the Dal-l Web pages:

Previous by Author: Re: Re. Nonstandard HTML
Next by Author: Re: Tabs, pages, and ambiguity
Previous by Thread: PRO IV anyone?
Next by Thread: Re: Message Confirmation?? Let's get the facts straight

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads