On Monday 02 April 2012 05:01, M. Fioretti wrote: > On Sun, April 1, 2012 4:41 pm, Mike Scott wrote: > > Actually, while I remember a disagreement, I'm not sure myself of > > the details. I think it might have been about using some sort of > > engine to guess a likely answer to unsubscribed queries - I > > vaguely seem to recall you didn't approve: > > Yes, now I remember, thanks. I stepped in because you suggested a > bayesian autoresponder, and I explained why in my opinion it > wouldn't work in this case. But it was a purely technical > disagreement, nothing personal. Heck, I was so happy to have found > somebody else that didn't want to "send again to unsubscribed > user"!. Anyway, it's all in the thread I posted yesterday.
I agree Marco. Among technically minded i see this issue failing often on the W3C Validator list where the Validator attempts to explain why a certain line of code does not meet a given (X)HTML standard. There are often involved, sometimes heated exchanges about wording of the auto responder. Any programmer knows error messages seldom tell you what is wrong, but often merely help with where to look. The auto-responder for newbies[TM] would be a far greater challenge by an order of magnitude. BEWARE Mike - There be dragons here... and you are crunchy and taste nice with tomato sauce. -- Michael --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
