True story - when the internet (and I) were younger, one of the first commercial Israeli ISP’s (Name withheld to protect the stupid) started offering e-mail accounts. This is like at least 10 years ago. One’s quota was, of course, miniscule (don’t remeber exactly - maybe one Meg).
Anyway, when you exceeded your quota, two things happened:
Your mail box was frozen - no more mails could be received.
You were auto-emailed a warning that you must clean up your account
(3. Hi Opal!)
**IN THIS ORDER!
A F*ING ISP!!
I leave the consequences as an excercise for the reader…
Of course, they caught on relatively quickly.
Oh, and wring - what you described actually makes sense sometimes. If I already have the other party’s email address, or it’s a lot easier to understand over a phone line, then I will send him/her a blank email so that they can respond. It has happened more than once that I suggested this line of action to someone who wanted my email (it was quite a mouthful to dictate!)
In this case, the person involved knew how to respond to emails only. She couldn’t initiate them. she couldn’t forward them. she could respond. She also would sometimes respond to something I’d sent by saying “Send this on to so and so”.
I have been mentally tortured by this - I took that as in the person wanted the best quality fax they can get - so they asked you to do the fax from the original - not the copy. As we all know copies of copies get worse and worse in quality. So don’t use a copy to send the fax with, use the original… sounds kinda ok…?
The transaction in question went sort of like this: Me: “I’ll fax you a copy and get an original certificate in the mail.”
Intended recipient: “Couldn’t you just fax the original?”
So the conclusion I drew was, no, copy quality was not the issue.