home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!infopiz!lupine!motcsd!starnet!jpp
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
- Subject: Re: mail expiration program
- Message-ID: <1992Jul28.023345.6363@StarConn.com>
- From: jpp@StarConn.com (John Pettitt)
- Date: 28 Jul 92 02:33:45 GMT
- References: <1992Jul23.203951.13691@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <1992Jul24.040748.17578@Princeton.EDU> <murphyn.712017538@galena15>
- Distribution: comp
- Organization: Starnet-Public Access UNIX--Los Altos, CA 415-949-3133
- Lines: 27
-
- murphyn@rtsg.mot.com (Neal P. Murphy) writes:
- >It seems to me that any policy of automatically deleting data belonging
- >to a user is ethically unsound... especially e-mail.
-
- spencer@rise.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun) replies:
- >Then instead of deleting the mail, use compress(1), or pack(1), or arc(1)
- >to make it take up less space, and send email to the owner that some of his
- >mail has been compressed to conserve disk usage.
-
- Or better still bounce the mail back to the sender with a `unread for xx
- days' tag. That seems no worse than happens when uucp system go down.
- The sender know the mail did not arrive. If you want you could leave a
- log entry in the users mailbox indicating the sender and the bounce
- date.
-
- On the ethics front - yes deleting user data is unsound - but unread
- email does not belong to the user - it's not been delivered yet
- (splitting hairs mode). Now once the user has read it it's a
- different game. (the strategy above assumes MUA's that add a status line).
-
- Just the musings of a retired mail hacker ..
-
-
- --
- John Pettitt jpp@starconn.com
- Archer N81034 apple!starnet!jpp
- Me, say that, never: It's a forged posting! Fax: +1 415 949 2037
-