Charles Christacopoulos writes:
"My reaction would be not to answer at all. You should stick to "one" formal
answer and refuse to give any info. even if the student does not exist in
your institution. If for some students you say they are not there and for
others you refuse to answer you will efectively admit that the latter are
there."
I couldn't agree more.
This discussion has set my 'postmaster' alarm bells ringing. For example,
in my mail domain (and many others) users are registered with friendly
addresses such as "J.Bloggs". If I send an email to
"[log in to unmask]" I get a fail message from the mail system I
manage. The crucial point is that it doesn't say "J Bloggs" doesn't work
here, it just says "J.Bloggs" is not on my list of valid recipients.
Following the policy of throwing away messages with no target recipients
(the equivalent of one of the telephone policies mentioned) would undermine
confidence in the email system (mis-typed addresses would result in
messages just getting lost for example).
Come to think of it - it undermines confidence in the telephone system too
- this really does add a new meaning to "I'll take a message", could
explain a lot....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
mail: ITAL Unit email: [log in to unmask]
UCLES phone: (01223) 552673
1 Hills Road fax: (01223) 552590
Cambridge
CB1 2EU
United Kingdom
www: http://ital.ucles-red.cam.ac.uk/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|