Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!uunet.uu.net!rick From: rick@uunet.uu.net (Rick Adams) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Certified SMTP mail Summary: cant reliably tell if a message was read Message-ID: <122372@uunet.UU.NET> Date: 11 Feb 91 19:37:59 GMT References: <1991Feb11.164855.22742@zoo.toronto.edu> Sender: usenet@uunet.UU.NET Lines: 21 Nntp-Posting-Host: uunet.uu.net > >I think it's a great idea. But why stop there? Why not have an additional confirmation > >that informs you when the message was actually read... > > That would be a good trick. Unless by "read" you mean "displayed on the > user's screen, whether he actually read it or not"... Even thats not good enough. A company I used to work for had an office autmoation system that allowed you to give messages a "confirm on read" status. So many people at the company applied it to everything that I used to run a text editor directly on the mail box to "read" the mail, then within the system, I "deleted unread" the messages. So, no confirmation... (Just my way of playing with their minds I guess.) Message confirmation is a great way to increase revenues if you charge per message. Its a lousy way to run a mail system. It basicaly replicates the received ok handshakes from lower levels and is not necessarily a useful indication. (I.e. what about all of the unacknowledged messages I read?) ---rick