Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > At 2:09 PM -0700 4/9/2000, Michael C. Berch wrote: > >So I would urge everyone to use that route as well, and explain > >the reasoning on each phone call. > > > >If this happens I wonder how long it will take for them to reinstitute a > >working mail address. > > they'll just route it to voice mail, and deal with it as they get to it... > > > After all, if it's their problem, they already know it. [...] In an operation as large (and possibly still heterogeneous) as AOL, there is significant doubt about the latter. -- Michael C. Berch [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- interesting link on the AOL postmaster/abuse problem Chuq Von Rospach
- Re: interesting link on the AOL postmaster/abuse p... Roger B.A. Klorese
- Re: interesting link on the AOL postmaster/abu... Chuq Von Rospach
- Re: interesting link on the AOL postmaster... Nick Simicich
- Re: interesting link on the AOL postma... Nick Simicich
- Re: interesting link on the AOL postmaster/abu... Michael C. Berch
- Re: interesting link on the AOL postmaster... Chuq Von Rospach
- Re: interesting link on the AOL postma... Michael C. Berch
- Re: interesting link on the AOL postma... Paul Hoffman / IMC
- Re: interesting link on the AOL postmaster... Roger B.A. Klorese
- Re: interesting link on the AOL postmaster/abu... Bernie Cosell
- Re: interesting link on the AOL postmaster... Roger B.A. Klorese
- Re: interesting link on the AOL postmaster/abuse p... Adam Bailey
- Re: interesting link on the AOL postmaster/abu... Jeremy Blackman
- Re: interesting link on the AOL postmaster/abu... Theodore M. Smith
- Re: interesting link on the AOL postmaster/abuse p... Adam Bailey
- Re: interesting link on the AOL postmaster/abuse p... Adam Bailey
- Re: interesting link on the AOL postmaster/abu... Chuq Von Rospach
