TELECOM@uunet.uu.net (07/13/89)
Take a look at the information which appears immediatly below -- => Message sent to: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu => Dated: Wed, 12 Jul 89 21:42:19 EDT => Subject: "Whatever Title Was On Your Message Here" => Received by Telecom Moderator: Wed Jul 12 20:46:07 CDT 1989 => Message size: 442 bytes >This is an automatic reply from TELECOM Digest. Your recent correspondence >was received here per the information shown above. Because the volume of >mail received is frequently quite heavy, this computer generated response >is used to speed a reply to you. It is not intended to lessen the value >of your correspondence....... (and the reply goes on....I will stop here for now) The above is a letter very familiar to those of you who have written to TELECOM Digest or comp.dcom.telecom with a submission for publication, or to request addition/deletion/changes to the mailing list. If you have not written to me **or if you have, but have not received the above letter**, then what I say now will be of particular importance: Sad story: One regular reader in the Chicago area recently sent <four> items for publication. He spent his time and effort preparing these articles to share with us. *All four got lost in transit*....swallowed by a black hole somewhere. It made me upset to have to report to him that not a single one of his submissions made it through the network, and he felt badly also. But he was tipped off that something was wrong when he did not receive the "auto reply" message sent out each time mail hits my box at eecs.nwu.edu. He was alert and contacted me to ask 'if auto reply is no longer being used'. "Auto.reply" is a program in my directory which kicks in each time mail is received. Other than a list of exceptions, such as 'mailer.daemon' and a few others known to themselves be automated responses, everyone who writes the Digest gets back the above receipt, and the form letter attached to it. This is intended to quickly inform you if your letter was somehow lost; and at the same time, it protects me against claims that perhaps some messages are deliberatly ignored while claiming non-reciept. It is intended as your proof that your letter was received here. Likewise, if you get two or more copies of the receipt, based on the same message, then you are alerted to the fact that somehow your message was inadvertently duplicated in the process of its transmission. I think all Moderators (and other users who receive heavy mail) should use "auto.reply", or something similar to assure their readers/correspondents that mail was received, or alert them when it was not received. I use "auto.reply" as a way of showing my concern for the hard work *you readers* do in writing the articles which have made TELECOM Digest a success. Always watch for "auto-reply" after you write me. If you don't get it in several hours -- maybe a day at most -- then send a duplicate of your correspondence. And always save a copy of what you have written until you actually see it in the Digest. Sometimes I get things, but still manage to lose them or mangle them in emacs. Also, please note that *sometimes* "auto-reply" itself fails to address you correctly, and *I* get it back undeliverable. Nothing is perfect! :) It has been written to attempt to get your correct address from the letter you send me. As we all know, those can get hysterical at times! :) Patrick Townson