On 13/6/2016 19:14, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
I would argue something differently: many email users (and postal
mail, for that matter), have an expectation that email is mostly but
not 100% reliable, due to spam false positives or just the lack of
delivery notification.
People can then
I would argue something differently: many email users (and postal mail, for
that matter), have an expectation that email is mostly but not 100%
reliable, due to spam false positives or just the lack of delivery
notification.
People can then choose to not respond to a message and later claim they
On 9/6/2016 17:46, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
Actually, many small operators also silently discard email. Whether it's
by incompetence, or voluntarily doesn't matter much. It's just less
visible than hotmail.
Undoubtedly, but they can't use the scaling-is-hard argument as a free
pass. We
On 06/09/2016 04:33 PM, G. Miliotis wrote:
> On 9/6/2016 16:13, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
>> The discussion is on-going.
>
> This is at least one good thing about this whole deal. I think your
> suggestion about deleted items (marked as such somehow) would be a good
> compromise.
>
While
