<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Bouncing of Emails
- To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Bouncing of Emails
- From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:25:31 -0800
Avri-
That's what I have been told as well, regarding the volume of spam generated on
these lists.
Best,
Margie
________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Avri Doria [avri@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 10:22 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Bouncing of Emails
Hi,
Yes, I have found that on ICANN email lists, sending email is a tow step
process:
- send the email
- check and see that it got there
I have asked about this, last when i was responsible for stuff, and was
informed that the effort needed to review all of the bounces for the legit
ones, given the number of people who spam ICANN lists, would be very large.
the alternative is for people is to ask for a second subscription which is set
to nomail - that way you can send from various addresses but receive on only
one. and yes, it is my own fault for not having done this - that is why i use
the process listed above.
a.
On 19 Feb 2010, at 12:11, Margie Milam wrote:
>
> Hi Mike-
>
> To answer your question, when you sign up for an email list, only the
> designated email alias is the one that can send emails to the list. Some
> people may use multiple email accounts and that may be the cause of confusion
> regarding why emails don't seem to make the list.
>
> Brian, have you sent any messages to the list? As Milton pointed out,
> they haven't surfaced on the archives.
> If so, please send Glen a request to add any other email accounts to the list.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Margie
> ___________
> Margie Milam
> Senior Policy Counselor
> ICANN
> ___________
>
> ________________________________________
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Mike Rodenbaugh [icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 5:03 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] proposed rewording of Objective 5 - resend
>
> Side questions to Staff re sending to lists from the wrong address...
>
> When that happens, why does the recipient not get a bounce notice?! That
> really ought to happen, I know some of my emails have never gone anywhere
> because I send from the wrong address and never realized it until far after
> their relevance had passed (or never realized it).
>
> More importantly, why can't I subscribe to send to lists from several emails
> so I don't have to remember which one to send from..., yet only have the
> list send to one of my addresses? This seems like it ought to be feasible,
> since I can think of it and it is a problem that afflicts anyone trying to
> keep voluminous ICANN email separate from personal and business accounts....
>
> Thanks for looking into it, if possible, and letting us know who on Staff
> would handle this request.
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 3:05 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] proposed rewording of Objective 5 - resend
>
>
> (sent during the meeting but from the wrong address and it was rejected)
>
>
> The friendly amendment:
>
> Using all information that has been collected by ICANN to date determine
> whether ...
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 17 Feb 2010, at 13:46, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Objective 5: To determine whether the changes to the current restrictions
> and/or practices concerning registry-registrar separation and equal access
> contained in the options set out in DAGv3 constitute an unacceptable
> deviation from current policies regarding registry-registrar sewparation.
>>
>> Rationale: this does not require research or an open-ended assessment of
> the entire registry-registrar market, but a simple determination that the
> DAGv3 proposals are an unauthorized policy change.
>>
>> --MM
>>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|