On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 07:47:35AM -0500, Michael Denney via mailop wrote: > <html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; > charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">Do you have Google Postmaster Tools > configured for the domain as advised in the complete error > message?<div><br></div><div> [...]
As per the link in your top-posted HTML-obfuscated email, "To use Postmaster Tools, you must have a Google Account". Which means agreeing to ream upon ream of legalese, and identifying yourself to a very large surveillance operation. Understandably, many people don't want to do that. I have doubts that jumping through the hoops to sign up for Postmaster Tools would even be a productive use of one's time. I had access to a site's Webmaster Tools a while back and it told me nothing that somebody with reasonable expertise would not already know or could readily infer from the server logs. This is probably more of the same: a sop for novice users and a way to deflect attention from problems Google themselves created. It's even more insidious for the equivalent service for Microsoft-hosted mail: its Microsoft Services Agreement has an "ESTIMATED READING TIME: 55 Minutes; 14268 words", and includes one of those infamous binding arbitration clauses. That went *really* well for Jeffrey J. Piccolo. For some, a perfectly acceptable thing to tell correspondents using these unreliable freemail services is "here's a nickel kid, get yourself a proper mail provider". It's different if reliable delivery of arbitrary email is one's core business of course, but smaller operations can just decide to fire difficult suppliers and customers who require unreasonable effort to contact. As to the bounced message being "quite important", how would one have sent it to somebody in the 1990s who was trapped in e.g. the AOL or Compuserve walled gardens? The telephone and postal service still work just fine. _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
