> From: John Stracke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > It's hard to know when a username is truely defunct.
>
> Depends on the corporation. At Netscape, we had an LDAP server that ruled
>everything: email, NT and NFS fileservers, phones, and key cards. When someone
> left the company, HR updated the LDAP
Vernon Schryver wrote:
> It's hard to know when a username is truely defunct.
Depends on the corporation. At Netscape, we had an LDAP server that ruled
everything: email, NT and NFS fileservers, phones, and key cards. When someone
left the company, HR updated the LDAP server, and that username
|>-Original Message-
|>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|>Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 3:49 AM
|>Subject: Re: Relation email - person (re: Mail sent to midcom)
|>
|>25.00% defunct
|> 0.1% duplicates (same person, different addresses)
|
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:25:26 +1100, Dassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I would consider such results the fault of the list maintainer and not
> a fault in the email system. Much like physical addresses used within
> the postal system, anyone maintaining a list needs to provide a means
> to maint
|>-Original Message-
|>From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|>Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 5:41 AM
|>To: Mike O'Dell; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|>Subject: Relation email - person (re: Mail sent to midcom)
|>
|>I recently had the dubious pleasure of se
At 17:18 13/02/2001 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
>I also wonder about Harald's sample - might this particular group of
>people be more likely to
>
>- understand the value of a stable email address
>- pick a ISP that provides good service and has good potential for longevity
>- have his/her own person
> From: John Stracke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The mapping address -> person is pretty strong, and mostly single-valued.
>
> Interesting. Hypothesis: this might happen because (a) ISPs (in the US) try
> to avoid reusing addresses in order to avoid ECPA problems; and (b)
> corporations try to avoid
> Hypothesis: this might happen because (a) ISPs (in the US) try
> to avoid reusing addresses in order to avoid ECPA problems; and (b)
> corporations try to avoid reusing addresses because they'd rather
> have email bounce than have confidential information go to the wrong person.
I also wonder
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> The mapping address -> person is pretty strong, and mostly single-valued.
Interesting. Hypothesis: this might happen because (a) ISPs (in the US) try
to avoid reusing addresses in order to avoid ECPA problems; and (b)
corporations try to avoid reusing addresses becaus
At 09:11 13/02/2001 -0500, Mike O'Dell wrote:
>today, with many more people having email addresses
>and many people having more than one email address
>for good and righteous reasons, that model simply
>doesn't work anymore. it isn't a "good-bad" thing,
>it's a "not applicable at the current scal
10 matches
Mail list logo
