On Thu, 4 May 2006 10:47:28 -0700 (PDT)
Matt Ghali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 3 May 2006, Joe Maimon wrote:
<COUNTER-RANT>
You know, people say things like this a lot. Its not relevant. What is
relevant is how AOL is supposed to know that
a) the email considered for rejection is actually wanted
b) and wanted by AOL employees themselves
And if they did know how to accurately determine that, we wouldnt be
having
this discussion.
The irony here of course, is that Matt Black's systems can't even tell if
they want the mail until _after_ the accept it- but that's a feature, and
AOL's in-transaction softfails are evil. Or something.
matto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]<darwin><
Moral indignation is a technique to endow the idiot with dignity.
- Marshall McLuhan
Nothing beats an ad hominem attack, huh? The irony here is that
your message contains that tribute to the media critic.
Now, it seems you are sugggesting that my e-mail servers hold back
on final accept until a message gets delivered to a remote AOL server.
Did I misread the above message?
For what it's worth, I received a very nice e-mail and had an
extended telephone conversation with a third-tier support
manager from AOL. They do respond and that's why I placed my
original post on this thread. I've found that honey is usually
more effective than vinegar (that's a metaphor).
matthew black
network services
california state university, long beach
