I *don't* infer anything from the lack of a response except that I didn't get a response.
I do, however, get useful information from a well-behaved OoO message. And the fact is: while I may know technically that e-mail won't necessarily be delivered immediately (or at all), we all _do_ depend on it. Increasingly, e-mail is the only information we share with strangers. Few Media Relations pages list phone numbers for the PR representatives. Unless I already have a relationship with the company, I'm unlikely to know their direct line. And while my example was PR related, it's easily generalizable. Yesterday, I sent an e-mail message to someone who'd expressed interest in writing an article for me. I didn't get a response, even though I said, "The deadline would be the 21st -- can you do it?" I don't have a phone number for the guy; all I have is the e-mail. Maybe he's out of the office, maybe he's slow to respond, maybe he's not interested. How the heck can I know? Meanwhile, I've scratched his article from the package; Ruby fans will hate me. Esther On Jan 8, 2008, at 2:15 AM, Jethro R Binks wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, WJCarpenter wrote: > >>> Summary: you cannot infer anything useful from a lack of response, >>> other than the fact that you haven't received a response. >> >> Yeah, but .... we're not talking about the lack of a response. We're >> talking about an out of office message or similar. You don't have to >> infer anything from that ... it comes right out an tells you. > > Esther was talking about what she infers from getting neither an > OoO, nor > a prompt response to her message, -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
