On 10/16/2014 at 06:37 AM, Tanstaafl wrote: > Please do not send to me directly, I am on the list. > > On 10/15/2014 3:15 PM, Jerry Stuckle <jstuc...@attglobal.net> wrote: > >> On 10/15/2014 12:40 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> The status code is not *sent* anywhere - it is a response >>> directly to the connecting machine. > >> Then how does it get back to the sending server? Magic? > > Can you not read? The CONNECTING MACHINE - the one that was directly > talking to YOUR server - is responmsible for that part of the > transaction. Spambots DO NOT DO THIS. I think there's a miscommunication here. I think that what you are calling the "connecting machine" is the same thing as what he is calling the "sending server". In both cases, I believe what is being referred to is "the machine to which the 'status code' will be sent". And I believe he's trying to (implicitly and passive-aggressively) point out is that the "status code" itself A: is a message, however tiny, and B: is "sent" from your "receiving server" to the "sending server"/"connecting machine" - and that, thus, a message is sent back. There are so many terms in this which appear to be being defined differently by the two sides of the discussion, it's no surprise that there's been so little real communication here; it's almost more surprising that there's been as much as there has. >>> It is then the responsibility of that machine that was talking to >>> your server to pass the response code back to the originating >>> *server* (not the sender of the email - there is a difference). > >> I didn't say the sender of the email. > > Maybe not, but I have no desire to go back through this thread to > see whether you ever did or not. You are apparently incapable of > communicating with semantic precision, so this time I'm really done. I don't think he's incapable of it; I think he's trying to browbeat you into accepting his terminology, by intentionally refusing to explain his meaning rather than simply point out where you didn't match it, so that you have to "figure out" for yourself what that meaning is - probably because figuring something out for yourself tends to lead to a deeper and more personally acceptable understanding. Which is fine enough up to a point, but past that point becomes a form of bad argument, and IMO we are very much past that point. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
