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

Subject: Re: Message Confirmation?? Let's get the facts straight
From: Jim Grey <jimgrey -at- IQUEST -dot- NET>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 08:49:00 EST

Matt Hicks (matt -at- unidata -dot- ucar -dot- edu) responded to my brief me-too to Sue
Gallagher's note:
>> >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 should have added a reason for my ditto. I want to avoid as long as
possible taking any measure that might damage this list's immediacy.

I have to dial in to my ISP and download my e-mail. I usually read and
respond to my mail first thing when I arrive at work. I usually don't get
another chance to log in during the day. Unless the listserv sends messages
back for confirmation and my ISP passes them along to me while I'm still
online, messages would wait until the next day for confirmation.

I've not had consistent minute-or-two command responses from the listserv.
This may be the fault of my ISP as much as of the listserv -- who knows. I
don't want to hang around online just to wait for a confirmation to return.
I need to get to work.

jim grey |beebeebumbleandthestingersmottthehoopleraycharlessingers
jimgrey -at- iquest -dot- net|lonniemackandtwangin'eddiehere'smyringwe'regoingsteadyta
-- -- a tiny voice needlessly saying little.

Previous by Author: Re: Windows terminology
Next by Author: Re: Documenting System While Under Developme
Previous by Thread: Re: Message Confirmation?? Let's get the facts straight
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