Adam McGreggor writes:
> > As others have said, if an autoresponder is responding repeatedly to
> > the same address in the course of a few days it is certainly behaving
> > badly. Lotus Notes and Exchange autoresponders should not be allowed
> > near the Internet.
>
> I'd rewrite th
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 03:43:40PM -0500, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2009, at 5:34 PM, Karl Zander wrote:
>
> >This particular autoresponder is not known to be broken.
>
> It's a bit dated, but I have a rant about broken autoresponder here:
>
> http://goldmark.org/netrants/auto-resp/
On Jun 28, 2009, at 5:34 PM, Karl Zander wrote:
This particular autoresponder is not known to be broken.
It's a bit dated, but I have a rant about broken autoresponder here:
http://goldmark.org/netrants/auto-resp/
As others have said, if an autoresponder is responding repeatedly to
the sa
Barry Warsaw writes:
> On Jun 29, 2009, at 9:47 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
>
> > (Sorry, forgot to include this.)
> >
> > On 6/29/2009 8:10 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> >> If it's replying to message with a Precedence: header (and any
> >> value) it's broken.
> >
> > You may want to take a lo
On 6/29/2009 8:51 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Thanks.
You are welcome.
Most things are documented if you know where to look. ;)
Grant. . . .
--
Mailman-Users mailing list
Mailman-Users@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailma
On Jun 29, 2009, at 9:47 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
(Sorry, forgot to include this.)
On 6/29/2009 8:10 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
If it's replying to message with a Precedence: header (and any
value) it's broken.
You may want to take a look at section 3.9, "Quality information" of
RFC 2076 (htt
On Jun 29, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 6/29/2009 8:10 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Can anybody find a reference for the semantics of X-Autogenerated?
I'd be willing to add a rule for this but I'd need to find a
reference.
Take a look at section 5, "The Auto-Submitted header field"
(Sorry, forgot to include this.)
On 6/29/2009 8:10 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
If it's replying to message with a Precedence: header (and any value)
it's broken.
You may want to take a look at section 3.9, "Quality information" of RFC
2076 (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2076.txt).
Grant. .
On 6/29/2009 8:10 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Can anybody find a reference for the semantics of X-Autogenerated? I'd
be willing to add a rule for this but I'd need to find a reference.
Take a look at section 5, "The Auto-Submitted header field" of RFC 3834.
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3834
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:15:11 -0700
Mark Sapiro wrote:
>
>As far as posting to a list is concerned, Mailman is looking for an
>X-BeenThere: header with the list address. It does look at a
>Precedence: header and will not process commands from or autorespond
>to Precedence 'bulk', 'junk' or 'list'
On Jun 28, 2009, at 6:34 PM, Karl Zander wrote:
Is there something specific Mailman is looking for to detect
autoreponders, like Out of Office messages? We had an incident this
weekend with an autoresponder sending an out of office message over
and over and overto a list.
This partic
Brad Rogers wrote:
> Hello Grant,
Hi.
> Like Matthias, I ban users that use auto-responders. No amount of
> begging, apologising or offering me money(0) has, so far, got any of
> the offenders back on my lists.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with you about banning people.
Rather I wa
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:27:22 -0500
Grant Taylor wrote:
Hello Grant,
> OoO auto responders usually reply to the From: (header) address of
> messages as they have on concept of the SMTP envelope sender. So if
Like Matthias, I ban users that use auto-responders. No amount of
begging, apologisin
Am/On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:27:22 -0500 schrieb/wrote Grant Taylor:
>On 6/28/2009 8:15 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
>> I would say the autoresponder is broken if it is responding
>> repeatedly to the same address on behalf of the same recipient. I
>> would also say it's broken it it responds to the list
On 6/28/2009 8:15 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I would say the autoresponder is broken if it is responding
repeatedly to the same address on behalf of the same recipient. I
would also say it's broken it it responds to the list for an
individual message (not a digest) unless the list is anonymous and
Karl Zander wrote:
>Is there something specific Mailman is looking for to detect autoreponders,
>like Out of Office messages? We had an incident this weekend with an
>autoresponder sending an out of office message over and over and overto a
>list.
>
[...]
>
>But I am not sure what Mailma
Is there something specific Mailman is looking for to detect autoreponders,
like Out of Office messages? We had an incident this weekend with an
autoresponder sending an out of office message over and over and overto a
list.
This particular autoresponder is not known to be broken. Its w
17 matches
Mail list logo
