On Thu 15 Sep 2016 at 19:07:46 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Thursday 15 September 2016 13:38:49 Brian wrote: > > On Thu 15 Sep 2016 at 11:01:12 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > Are you deliberately remaining uncontactable off list? You must be > > > sending > > > > I am not uncontactable. > > > > > from one email address and receiving to another, since the email address > > > <a...@cityscape.co.uk> still doesn't work, and you are getting list > > > emails. > > > > The system delivering the mail (which I do not control) definitely works > > because you got a helpful mail by return. That mail did not come from my > > mail system. > > No, the emails I tried to send off-list got rejection messages, not helpful > replies.
What if Royal Mail told you they were unable to deliver a letter you had put into one of their nice red pillar boxes? Wouldn't that be useful information you could take action on? If you sent a letter to 123 M7 9QD in the UK and it wasn't returned you would surely assume Royal Mail had delivered it? I'd dispute that bounce messages are not useful. Problems very often arise when mail has been delivered but there is no feedback. > > As a matter of interest: suppose you had received no rejection message; > > what would you think? > > I would assume that you had had the email and ignored it. Why should *I* have the mail? If the receiving system doesn't pass it on to me I'll never see it. The best you can say is that the receiving system accepted the mail via SMTP. What happens after that has nothing to do with SMTP. Another system accepts the mail from the SMTP transaction and deals with it. Knowledge of what happens there could be non-existent unless the accepting system chooses to tell you. The mail is accepted. What the receving system does with it is up to it. It could put the mail through a spam detection system which deletes the mail or not let a user download it without paying. None of this process is under the control of the recipient; she gets what the receiving system decides she gets. The sending system also has no say in the matter Think of all the mails which come through your letter-box; Royal Mail (SMTP) has done its job. The sender has had the letter delivered; they get no bounce message so think the recipient has receved it. But, unbeknownst to you, or Royal Mail, someone in the house filters out some of the mail. You may never know this happens. Acceptance of mail by the mail system does not imply or guarantee the recipient receives a mail. It depends on what happens after the acceptance (which is not controlled by the recipient or the sending system). > > Working from those thoughts: suppose you never > > received a reply from me? What would go through you mind? > > If you were continuing to reply to the list I would assume that I was being > ignored for some reason. If you were not posting to the list I would worry > fruitlessly about you and miss your contribution. My mail to the list and the mail entering my inbox are completely independent. Think about it; there is no connection between the two processes. However, even though the assumption is unsustainable, I understand what you are saying. It is natural to think that sending something means it gets there. After all, in 9,999 cases out of 10,000 it does. > > > If you are prepared to be contacted off-line, but don't want to publish > > > the address here, may I have it? You have my email address!! > > > > The address *is* published here. Please see the final two paragraphs of > > > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/08/msg00997.html > > Yes, I am sorry. I did look. But I am partially sighted, headers are > difficult, I was in a hurry and I knew that you had been having a problem > with ?Demon? and that address that you were wondering how to resolve. Demon have decided that mail provision has been free all these years. "Free" means it is not subject to contact and consequently can be moved elsewhere and made accessible for a fee. I am too tightfisted to pay for "elsewhere". > I will copy and paste your headers into a word processor so that I can edit > them into legibility and go from there. You'll get there. Say if you don't. -- Brian.
