On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 15:39 -0400, John Levine via mailop wrote: > It appears that Johann Klasek via mailop < > klasek+mai...@zid.tuwien.ac.at> said: > > the aim is, that everyone on the recipient site > > is obligated to provide best possible reachability. > > No, it's to deliver the mail that the users want. One point that bulk > mailers often miss is that, while the recipients at large providers > do not object to getting the bulk mail, they also do not really want > it.
I am by no way a bulk mailer. My server sends only legal documents and invoice, all as PDF attachment and with no HTML or other eyecandy or trackware. And yet Microsoft's StupidWhatever(TM) eats the mail without notice to either recipient or sender. How can the recipients know that this is what they want? On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 21:19 +0200, Johann Klasek via mailop wrote: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 02:48:23PM -0400, John Levine via mailop > wrote: > > > > You should definitely demand a full refund of all the money you've > > paid Microsoft to deliver your mail. > > Oh, wait, ... > > Sorry, I can't here this capitalistic sarcasm anymore That reply has nothing to do with capitalism, and even as sarcasm it is stale. The capitalistic answer is to make the provider responsible / liable for the damages caused by its non-reacheability. It is plain wrong to substitute the provider's StupidWhatever(TM) whims for the individual recipient's decision what is spam and how to deal with it. The individual recipient is the only person entitled to have whims and to ignore incoming mail, at his own responsibility. -- Yuval Levy, JD, MBA, CFA Ontario-licensed lawyer _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
