* David Champion <dgc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [2004:08:11:16:04:42-0500] scribed: > * On 2004.08.11, in <20040811205001.GS3845@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, > * "Michael D Schleif" <mds@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > How often does this happen? What is the purpose of FCC? Why should > > ... > > Perhaps, for you. IMHO, I want my Sent folder to be a complete history > > of every message I sent -- and tried to send. Then, each month, I > > archive older historical messages to archive directories. > > > > But, that's just me ;> > > Without trying to get into this debate, I think this is where the > disagreement lies. Yes, I agree, and that is the point that I was trying to get at with my original post. > I think it's quite natural for someone to think that FCC: should be a > record of sent mail, not of "well, I *meant* to send it". But I'm just > speaking philosophically here. Really? Am I wrong, or did your MUA *ACTUALLY* send it; but, something happened between your MTA and SMTP? What do you do in the cases -- far, far more common in my world -- where a day or two later, I receive a bounce message? You know, the recipient's mailbox is full, their ISP no longer accepts directly from my cable modem and insists that I send through my ISP, their address has changed and the old one is no longer valid . . . I just cannot imagine any scenario where the resulting FCC's are so numerous as to be a problem. Notice that I am writing out of experience, sending several dozen messages per day, receiving upwards of 3000 messages per day, and archiving ten (10) GB of history. If that were the case, I'd be spending more time investigating my MTA for bugs, rather than slamming mutt for following RFC's ;> Again, just me here . . . -- Best Regards, mds mds resource 877.596.8237 - Dare to fix things before they break . . . - Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . . --
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature