salut � toutes et � tous ;-) On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 01:03:52PM +0100, zulian wrote: > le mod�rateur de la liste ne peut-il pas suspendre cette adresse ?
J'avais propos� une solution ; je pense qu'elle est pass�e assez inaper�ue dans le flot m�morable d'hier... Je me permet de la soummettre � nouveau. Comme en plus, c'est un probl�me que je rencontre ailleurs, j'ai un petit peu cherch�, et voici ce que j'ai trouv� de plus satisfaisant : < - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - > URL: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12525.html Re: too many "Out of Office AutoReply" _________________________________________________________________ > > I notice also that ALL of the autoresponder messages come from "Internet > > Mail Service" Microsoft software.... No surprises there then! I went round and round with our people about this (we have over 70 lists with over 50,000 subscribers at Internet Security Systems). Someone was finally able to tell me that recent versions of Exchange will not autorespond to messages with Precedence set to "bulk" but will autorespond to messages with no Precedence setting or with a Precedence setting of "list". They are keying on the string, not the numeric value. All of our list messages now go out with the "Precedence: bulk" header to eliminate that much. Of the remainder (older versions of Outlook and Exchange), many violate SEVERAL rules of autoresponders such as never autoresponding to an autoresponder an responding more that once to a given address. If you think about it, this is a DoS attack waiting to happen. Just get a few of these and spoof messages them from each of them. :-) Fundamentally evil and fundamentally SIMPLE. And, yes, I know of one individual who actually got fed up with two particular others and did that to them. They had been warned and they set up the autoresponders anyway. They came back to over 8,000 messages and mailboxes overlimit. They blamed each other, of course, and they were right... Just for the wrong reasons. :-) And, no, it wasn't me that done that. Recent versions of Outlook, Outlook Express, and Exchange avoid both of those damaging misbehaviors as well, so it's only chumps^H^H^H^H^H^H victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^Husers with software that is overdue for an update. < - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - > 1) je ne connais pas grand chose � tout cel� (les champs d'ent�te des messages), et je n'ai pas trouv� de rfc expliquant le champ Precedence ; malgr� tout, si j'en crois ce qui pr�c�de, et dans le cas de *notre* liste, la solution est-elle de demander � l'admin de mettre le champ Precedence � "bulk" ? Il est � "list" sans champ Return-Path. 2) et si l'admin de la liste ne veut pas le faire (exp�rience v�cue), comment peut-on indiquer (dans les ent�tes) qu'on ne veut pas recevoir ces messages *non sollicit�s* et sans int�r�t ? Le mettre � "bulk" ne sert � rien car le gestionnaire de liste l'�crase alors, pour le mettre � la valeur qu'il veut ("list"). J'ai test� ! Pareil pour le champ Return-Path ! en clair, je suis abonn� � une liste avec Precedence � "list" et un champ Return-Path qui prend comme valeur mon adresse (Sympa, dans ce cas, � l'air configur� de la sorte) et __je__ recois les autoreply. Je voudrais savoir comment dire au robot qui envoie les autoreply de ne pas le faire, et sans que le gestionnaire de liste le modifie. bonne journ�e, PS: merci Charles (Goyard) pour ta r�ponse d'hier :) -- Philippe BOURCIER http://bourcier.philippe.online.fr
