On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 13:52:03 MDT, Michael Loftis said:
> --On June 11, 2005 2:51:42 PM -0400 Valdis Kletnieks
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:23:32 EDT, Bill Verity said:
> >
> >> I really don't *EVER* want to know about bounced confirmations, do I?
> >
> > You probably *do* want to know if [log in to unmask] sends an important post
> > to [log in to unmask] and the confirm bounces. ;)
>
> Sounds great in theory, but in this day of malware and worms you'll get
> 5000 pieces of junk, and ONE piece that you might be interested in.  IOW -
> it will just get lost in the noise anyway.

My point was that there *does* exist that one piece you care about - Bill
was asserting that under *no* conditions does one exist..

Thus the correct fix is to address the causes of the 5000 pieces of junk,
not blindly toss them *all* away.  Although I *do* grant that as a matter
of practical expediency, 'rm *.ok?????' *is* a lot quicker ;)