🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <davecb.726014848@yorku.ca> davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) writes:
>   Mr. Stanley is raving mad (in the sense of angry, 

I am?

>not insane, 

Thanks. Is your psychology or psychiatry degree available for perusal on
the net somewhere, or are you making THAT up, too?

>but also consider fingering him and making up your own mind) 

What could fingering me have to do with how reliable mail isn't? It is,
however, proof that finger is not a reliable method of determining
whether mail has or hasn't arrived and whether someone has or hasn't
read it.

>and is arguing events which may well have taken place somewhere, some time.

Are you accusing me of lieing?

>They are seriously unusual and do not justify the establishment of the
>return receipt mechanism.

Would you please show me where I claimed ANYWHERE that it did?

>  York is the second-largest and second-cheapest university in Canada,
>and one of our three main mailhubs processes between 100 and 200
>thousand messages per month (see below). 

That's nice. Also irrelevant.

[lots of irrelevant x's deleted]

> It is a rare event and a major concern when messages go missing or
>unanswered in a given month: my job depends on the reliable operation
>of SMTP.

Wake up, Dave. SMTP is not reliable. The RFC that defines the protocol
has the goal of making it so, but real world implementations are hardly
reliable. And, here is something that might surprise you, the entire
world does not use SMTP. There are plenty-o-places where mail passes
over non-SMTP links. 

>  If memory serves, we had about three panics (searches for missing
>messages) last year, out of 1.8m+.  That still makes my blood run cold...

That's nice. Too bad that your users aren't educated enough about the
lack of reliability of mail that they would panic when a piece gets
lost. Of course, maybe more than three pieces got lost, and nobody but
those three people (one person three times?) got bent out of shape about
it because they knew how the real world works?