On Wed, 06 May 2009 13:59:23 -0400 Came this utterance formulated by McLauchlan, Kevin to my mailbox:
> > Michael Adams [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > Under what situation does one have trouble getting off > > the list? > > > > > > Here's one. > > > > > > I was a long-time subscriber to another list, and then needed to > > > change something, BUT my company had made a change in our e-mail > > > system. My e-mail address went from being > > > <firstinitial+familyname>@address.com to being > > > <firstname.familyname>@address.com. > > > > > > They allowed a grace period of a couple of years, during which > > > incoming mail to <firstinitial+familyname> was accepted > > along with the > > > new address. But of course, you see the problem. Long before > > > the two years was up (in fact the first day of the change) > > > OUTGOING mail began coming from > > > <firstname.familyname>@address.com. > > > > > > Thus, with the same e-mail account as I'd always had, I could no > > > longer send unsubscribe or confirmation e-mails from my old > > self - the > > > self that had originally subscribed... the self that would be > > > recognized by the automated listserver. > > > > > > > This is a no brainer, explain the problem to the IT dept. and he/she > > would look after it for you. > > Your comment "no brainer" implies that it takes no brains to solve the > problem and therefore I'm lacking seriously. Obviously, you don't work > for (and have never) a large-ish corporation with the IT department > located a thousand miles away and buffered by procedures and > processes. While it is possible to nag them until they deal with a > problem like that, it risks having them be less accessible and helpful > when a _real_ problem arises. > > Anyway, this was years ago, and somebody (a few posts back) assures me > that listserver software now accepts confirmation e-mails from other > than the original (subscribed) address... which was not the case when > I had the problem. > > I merely provided an example where somebody asked "Under what > situation..." > > > By the way, here's another one you can toss snide "no brainer" > assertions at: > > Some corporations have very convoluted filtering systems, consisting > of multiple, overlaid spam-filtering tools, domain-blocking, and all > sorts of other approches combined. Users of the mail system don't get > access to all mail that has been filtered out. > > By contrast, if the company outsources that task to a mail-filtering > service, their screening is usually more integrated, and users can > access the withheld mail or can edit "white lists" to ensure that > certain mail always comes through (like messages from the spouse or > from the heirs to Nigerian fortunes :-) ).... But that's not the case > for everybody who's a cog in a big impersonal system. > No brainer, subscribe at home - not work. A business with a large multi-layered email system is probably adding hugely wastefull email footers anyway, where links to this awful information would suffice. They would make friends by making this information pull - not push. http://www.collaboratemarketing.com/modernmarketing/2009/04/a-few-weeks-ago-one-of-my-clients-told-me-they-valued-my-contribution-because-i-was-trying-do-good-things-you-are-our.html -- Michael All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well - Julian of Norwich 1342 - 1416 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
