MSGTAG

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by John Bull, Sep 7, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. John Bull

    John Bull Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2009
    Posts:
    904
    Location:
    London UK
    The thread is too old to be replied to, but the problem is not.
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=235199&highlight=msgtag

    MSGTAG is a perfectly valid program for letting you know that the recipient of your Email has read it.

    There is nothing bad in this, it is common decency to acknowledge the receipt of a letter. People who think they can ignore receipt of an Email are the ones that are to be despised. It is not an invasion into ones privacy, just a decent action in saying that you have received a letter and to tell the sender you have.

    Why on Earth should one object to acknowledging a post ? The negative answer is obnoxious.

    I know very well how one can prevent MSGTAG from functioning, but I will not give the details here.

    I find it revolting that some people object to having their reading habits made known to the senders of Emails. I will not discuss this aspect, it is too stupid and disgusting for further comment.

    Many Malware programs class MSGTAG as a worm or Spyware. What an incredible situation ! The MSGTAG staff are some of the nicest people you can ever wish to encounter, very obliging, extremely helpful and you could not wish to meet a better organisation on the entire net.

    Quite frankly anybody who objects to an Email receipt being sent on opening a message is nothing more than highly suspicious and not worthy of any personal credibility or trust.

    With ordinary land-line postage, if the matter is important, I always send it by recorded delivery or registered post.
    The very idea of trying to hide the receipt of a letter is downright revolting and deceitful and MSGTAG are trying their best to defeat this obnoxious attitude.

    Privacy has nothing to do with it - common courtesy has.

    John Bull
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2010
  2. ABee

    ABee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Posts:
    330
    I've got a buck (or quid) that says you won't have the common courtesy to acknowledge this post of mine. ;)

    When I receive an e-mail from a friend, my normal way of acknowledging that I've received it is to send a reply in response.
    That works not only just as well as allowing a 'read receipt', it works even better. It might even be considered courteous of me to use that method.
    It's also the way I prefer to let my friend know I've received the e-mail, and having my friend perhaps respond to that response is my preferred choice of a return acknowledgement.

    When a spammer sends me something, I have less than zero desire to let that spammer know I've received their unwelcome and unsolicited POS missive.
    Therefore, no 'read receipt', no 'MSGTAG'.

    Entiende?
     
  3. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    John, is there some sort of ISSUE with this program, or did you open a thread just to rant about people not sending a read receipt back to you? If everything I have read is right, this program uses the same kind of tech that spammers do to flag "live" email addresses. And, I agree as the previous poster does, if I want you to know I got your message, I'll reply back to you. This sort of thing should only be done in businesses, NOT for personal home use, IMHO.
     
  4. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,039
    I don't use these receipt things in my business either. I consider them rude. The courteous thing is to make a legitimate reply, which is what I do.

    Pete
     
  5. Clive T

    Clive T Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Posts:
    189
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    Aw. Please don't feed the troll.
     
  6. Cudni

    Cudni Global Moderator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Posts:
    6,956
    Location:
    Somethingshire
    We covered all angles of the discussion.EOF
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.