Quoting Philip Hazel (Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 09:45:27AM +0100)
> On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> > "Your message didn't get delivered as well as you might've hoped. Here's why
> > http://mta.mycom.tld/oops.cgi?lang=en&code=552&msgid="
> I'm sorry. That would annoy me. Why not *tell* me what happened rather
> than indirect me to a (remote) web server that may be down. Contrary to
> the general way the world is going, I don't always have a browser
> running.
Agree with Phil here. It doesn't take much to just write the
excuse/message on the mail. Less hassle for those of us who get 400+
mails a day :<
> Sending, on every message, a fancy "business card" in HTML with a logo
> that makes it many times bigger than the actual message is particularly
> annoying. I read my email using Pine on Unix. I now never bother to look
> at gratuitous attachments in HTML (or anything else, for that matter).
> [It's different if the message says "here's an attached
> document/webpage/binary for your attention".]
Does anyone has a filter file that scans the mails and rejects those
with .doc .xls .xv-card attachements and mail the sender with a message
not to send M$ crap to me????
If not, I'll try to hack one together.
> I'm probably an old-fashioned dinosaur (having been around rather a long
> time), but I don't like complexity just for the sake of it.
;>
--
Yann Golanski Internet Systems Developer
yann.golanski@??? The Planet Online
