On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 17:11 +0000, Mark wrote:
Tony Finch wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Mark wrote:
terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com wrote:
No he did not. Please attribute quotes correctly.
Please, interpret posts correctly; the text I quoted had a double ">>",
indicating I was quoting the poster Terry quoted. So, relative to
"terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com wrote:", the ">>" was correct.
Strictly speaking, I suppose Terry did indeed write that, and the
original fault is indeed with him for not attributing correctly, and not
including an attribution line which you in turn could include.
But perhaps Mark you could have cleaned it up when you replied? It would
have helped. I really do wish people would behave a little better in
their use of email -- if we can't manage a little bit of decorum even in
a forum where we discuss technical matters related to email, surely we
might as well all just give up on netiquette entirely?
Hey, why don't we just reject all email with a null return path?
That'll solve the backscatter problem! Who cares about reliability
anyway?
Very silly remark, in otherwise very silly post.
You _do_ understand that this idea was the logical conclusion of your
suggestion to use '-f nobody(_at_)(_dot_)(_dot_)(_dot_)', and hence prevent the
sender of the
mail from getting any resulting bounces -- right?
--
dwmw2