🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <FRIEDMAN.93Jan1031937@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman) writes: 
>And here's one possible reason why finger may not be reliable: depending on
>your backup method, the atime on spool files may be munged, and fingerd
>will think the file has been "read".  True it has, but not by a user.  :-)

In addition, I use slocal to deliver my mail to an alternate mailbox,
where it may sit for a few seconds, or a few weeks.  There is no way
to automaically tell if I have really seen the message or not.  And
fingerd is certainly not going to have any clue about this at all.

I'd also like to point out that many systems do not have the unread
mail hack to fingerd.

>All this nonsense about UA automated read-receipt replies is a waste
>of time.

Yes.  People are also forgetting that even if they get a read-receipt,
it doesn't mean that I read the message.  For example, if the disk
crashes while I'm reading the message, but after the read-receipt got
sent out, then the user on the other end has now way to know that
fact.  In addition, return-receipt also suffers from the same problem,
but with a much larger window....

Warner
-- 
Warner Losh		imp@boulder.parcplace.COM	ParcPlace Boulder
I've almost finished my brute force solution to subtlety.