Re: Inexpensive anti-spamware/anti-verminware tactic

James Craig Burley <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Mail system admins will prefer it.  It's a lot easier to tell a customer they
> >have to pay for outgoing traffic than for incoming, unsolicited traffic.
> 
> That's true.
> 
> It remains to be seen whether too many customers will insist on having
> storage for incoming, unsolicited traffic anyway, so they can be
> assured of being able to read email that's sitting in their in-boxes.

Huh?

> (I wonder if there might be any lawsuits claiming false advertising
> related to IM2000: "My ISP said I didn't have to pay for incoming,
> unsolicited traffic; they didn't tell me that meant I'd often lose
> access to incoming messages, even after I read them!")

If you want to keep copies of your incoming mail, your MUA will keep a local
copy even after it has instructed the originating message store to unpin it,
just like your MUA keeps copies of messages it retrieves from a POP3 server
(whether or not it deletes them from the POP3 server).

Nowhere in Jonathon's writeup does it say anything about mail storage after
you tell the originating message store to un-pin a message.  The only time a
message you've read can "disappear" on you is if (1) you're still reading it
directly out of the remote originating message store, (2) your MUA is not
keeping a copy of it locally once it has retrieved it, and (3) the message
expires out of the originating message store.

Charles
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon                           <[email protected]>
GPL'ed software available at:     http://www.qcc.ca/~charlesc/software/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------