so having people unable to receive IETF mail because of your naivete
isn't harmful?
Having them not able to receive their re-directed copies of virus
warnings is a feature, not a bug.
and presumably having them not be able to receive any mail from the
IETF list is a feature, also? or didn't you bother to read what I wrote?
If they can't run their forwarders
right, or find people who can, then they should be spending time fixing
those problems instead of reading this mailing list.
what makes you think it's *their* forwarders that are causing the problem?
In other words, it's not naivete to say that if you want to play with
the big kids, you ought know what you're doing.
and perhaps, so should you.
p.s. perhaps you should see if Microsoft is hiring. it sounds like you'd
fit right in :)
You first, given the 8 copies I've received and the 7 that everyone
else has received of your
<200107251753(_dot_)NAA18284(_at_)astro(_dot_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
perhaps you should read RFC 1047 before you start pointing fingers.
but since you mentioned it, the message was still in my mail
queue with "error waiting for reply from DATA". I removed it.
Keith
p.s. in case you missed it the point of my original message was:
it's fine to make suggestions for how to solve problems, but you might
consider that you don't understand enough about the problem to say for
sure that you know the fix. people have looked at using precedence: bulk
before and found problems with it. conditions do change, so maybe
it would work well enough now. but it has done harm in the past.