Comments on: Loose E-mail, Fast E-mail

By: Wilson Murphy

Wilson Murphy — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:07:46 +0000

Simply, admirable what you have done here. It is charming to see you speak from the heart and your clarity on this significant subject can be easily seen. Wonderful post and will look forward to your future update.

By: wilderness guides

wilderness guides — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:03:20 +0000

It is very obvious you are an expert on this topic! I am setting in motion a website soon, and your information will be very useful for me.. Thanks for all your help and bidding you all the success in your business concern.

By: Business Email Solution India

Business Email Solution India — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:42:54 +0000

Now thats funny, One-to -many was supposed to be a solution. I think there should be a confirmation check to ensure that the sender really wants to opt for one to many or one to one before any mail is sent.

By: Derek Bambauer

Derek Bambauer — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 01:09:13 +0000

I’ve also sent the occasional accidental e-mail. It’s even better than coffee as far as stimulants go.

Kent, I think that’s an interesting idea. The one-to-many system initially introduced in RFC821 is the cause of a lot of problems (as well as offering tremendous efficiency, of course). It’d be neat to have an algorithm implemented by the server-side MTA that held the message. The challenge might be implementing functionality that would provide the retract mechanism – I think Domino still uses the mail-tracking system to do this, and it creates a fair bit of overhead.

By: Kent Komeri

Kent Komeri — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:23:22 +0000

Cool off period would be a nice addition, but it comes with a few drawbacks as mentioned. The instantaneous message transfer gets interrupted. Having set up quite a few internal and external mail systems, I’ve often come across delays in transfers that could essentially be used for a retraction, but that wouldn’t really solve the problem.

Maybe one needs to look at this slightly differently – introduce a delay on multiple reciepients or mailing lists. This would probably be much more productive but would require each and every client to be updated with this feature as it is often the clients that have the list of reciepients. Of course this could or should also be applied to server side MTA’s when sending to lists handled by these.
This approach would leave the instantant message to one person live and prosper but limit the broadcasting facility with an option to retract. You essentially get the best of both worlds.

By: N. Brown

N. Brown — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:10:50 +0000

I am one of those idiots who accidentally used the reply all when I should have used reply. While the result was mild amusement on the part of the recipients, it was nevertheless a “close call,” as I had added a humorous social note to a business email.

Since that time, I’ve adopted a distinctly low tech solution to the problem. It requires no software upgrades or server setting changes. I simply try to avoid sending e-mails that I would be unhappy to see on the front of the World Weekly News.