- Previous message: (no name): "Re: AOL Non-Lameness"
- Maybe in reply to: Joseph S D Yao: "Re: AOL Non-Lameness"
- Next in thread: Simon Waters: "Re: AOL Non-Lameness"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
|
|
|
From: Steven Champeon (no email)
Date: Mon Oct 02 2006 - 19:14:34 EDT
on Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 06:45:46PM -0400, wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Rick Kunkel wrote:
> > I had users that appeared to be getting their email blocked seemingly
> > because in their sigs, they write their phone number that stupid
> > IP-Address-Wannabe method, like:
> >
> > 206.555.1212
> >
> > As an aside, is this something that's the norm in other places, like
> > commas instead of periods for decimals in other countries? I'd hate to
> > sound critical if it was. It just seems that I know a large amount of
> > very American people who have decided that phone numbers with periods in
> > them somehow look more "hip" than dashes. I despise that. Can you tell?
> > ;)
>
> Do those people also put "http://" in front of their phone numbers? If
> not, then AOL would reject any email containing an IP address in the
> message body for any reason.
You've never seen anything like
http://foo.example.com * 978-555-1212 * 978-555-2424 (fax) * FooBar Ltd.
in a sig?
Now how about in spam? URLs in spam are often so broken they're unusable
in anything but the most forgiving mail clients, but that doesn't stop
them from being spam, and it doesn't stop others from trying to detect
them despite all their brokenness. Cut AOL some slack - they've been very
responsive whenever I have had trouble with them, and they've been very
responsive this time.
-- hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2553 w: http://hesketh.com/ antispam news, solutions for sendmail, exim, postfix: http://enemieslist.com/ rambling, amusements, edifications and suchlike: http://interrupt-driven.com/
|
|
|