Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
On 29.04.2009 14:30, Neil Bothwick wrote: >> In fact, all that's needed is already there (just the other way round, >> though): every list I'm subscribed to adds a "Precedence" header field >> (with values of "bulk" or "list") to the messages. A sane auto-responder >> will not send replies to messages containing this header field. > > Good idea, I'll rewrite the procmail rules I use... not that I'm going > on holiday for a while :( You should check not only "Precedence: Bulk" headers but "List:" headers, "Auto-Submitted:" headers, "owner-foo" envelopes, "foo-request@" envelopes, "Precedence: Junk" headers ... See RFC 3834 for recommendations: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3834.txt -- Eray
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:15:30 +0200, Markus Schönhaber wrote: > > I suppose what we really need is a standard header to be inserted by > > auto-responders. Then mailing list software can simply ignore any such > > mails. > > In theory a good solution. In practice I doubt it helps. > Whoever is "able" to configure an auto-responder in such a completely > brain-dead way, as we have seen recently, will very likely screw up > adherence to such a standard too. Yes, I thought of that the instant I hit Send! > In fact, all that's needed is already there (just the other way round, > though): every list I'm subscribed to adds a "Precedence" header field > (with values of "bulk" or "list") to the messages. A sane auto-responder > will not send replies to messages containing this header field. Good idea, I'll rewrite the procmail rules I use... not that I'm going on holiday for a while :( -- Neil Bothwick Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
Neil Bothwick: > I suppose what we really need is a standard header to be inserted by > auto-responders. Then mailing list software can simply ignore any such > mails. In theory a good solution. In practice I doubt it helps. Whoever is "able" to configure an auto-responder in such a completely brain-dead way, as we have seen recently, will very likely screw up adherence to such a standard too. In fact, all that's needed is already there (just the other way round, though): every list I'm subscribed to adds a "Precedence" header field (with values of "bulk" or "list") to the messages. A sane auto-responder will not send replies to messages containing this header field. No matter how you look at it - there's little that protects you against a dim-wit someone has told "you're sysadmin now". Regards mks
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
> >> To answer you question: It depends. > > I was responding to a statement that any kind of auto-responder is wrong, > so "it depends" is not allowed :) so the correct answer is: NO. :-) > > > Another use it to let people know that their mail has been received. I > company I do work for has an auto-responder on their accounts address. > Emails are usually replied to quickly, but if I send an invoice there > is no need for a human response but the automated mail shows they > received it. > > I would use a fax for this. The printout from the fax shows they received it and it is better for court (in Germany) than email. kh
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:42:59 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > Unsubscribing the user will have reduced the traffic he is causing by a > significant margin. And give the list admins breathing space in which to add a rule to silently drop messages from that address. I suppose what we really need is a standard header to be inserted by auto-responders. Then mailing list software can simply ignore any such mails. -- Neil Bothwick "Theory and practice are the same in theory, but different in practice" signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:34:11 +0200, KH wrote: > >> IMHO, setting up any kind of auto-responder is a *huge* mistake. > > > > Any kind? Even a well functioning one that send no more than one mail > > to any address in a day? I use a procmail rule to take care of this, > > it appears after list filtering rules to list mails are not > > auto-responded. But even if it did appear before a list's rule, one > > mail per day is hardly a problem. > is there a how-to for setting up a rule like this? man procmailex > To answer you question: It depends. I was responding to a statement that any kind of auto-responder is wrong, so "it depends" is not allowed :) > Sometimes I receive auto response > like "Hey I won't be at my desk for the next 30 mins because I went to > get some launch." The people that do that probably also tell everyone on twitter when they're going for a dump. > No email should be that important that one cannot wait > like a day for an replay. If it is that important one should just use > the phone. Agreed. > Going to a place without internet or on vacation for weeks, ok it is > correct to inform the sender, that the email will not be read until > whenever. Another use it to let people know that their mail has been received. I company I do work for has an auto-responder on their accounts address. Emails are usually replied to quickly, but if I send an invoice there is no need for a human response but the automated mail shows they received it. -- Neil Bothwick Just when you got it all figured out: An UPGRADE! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
On Wednesday 29 April 2009 11:25:41 KH wrote: > fe...@crowfix.com schrieb: > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 05:31:06PM +0200, Xavier Parizet wrote: > >> As his autoresponder respond to all mail received to his mail address, i > >> sent at 12h15 a mail "faking" hist email address to > >> gentoo-user+unsubscr...@lists.gentoo.org and it did the trick... > >> Now i think he is spammed with "you're not subscribed to this list" > >> mlmmj mails... > > > > Nice! I toast you with a virtual beer. > > Wouldn't that mean, that the server hosting the mailing list still is on > heavy duty? That still would evect the functionality of the server and > in the end of our list, wouldn't it? Not at all. Currently, the list receives one mail and sends one "you are not subscribed" mail back, which may or may not elicit an autoresponse. As it was, the list receives one mail, sends one copy to everyone on the list (including the user with the autorespond), which may or may not elicit an autoresponse. Unsubscribing the user will have reduced the traffic he is causing by a significant margin. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
Neil Bothwick schrieb: > On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:12:02 +0200, Jarry wrote: > >>> That's a little harsh. He may not even know his company's >>> auto-responder is so hideously broken. >> IMHO, setting up any kind of auto-responder is a *huge* mistake. > > Any kind? Even a well functioning one that send no more than one mail to > any address in a day? I use a procmail rule to take care of this, it > appears after list filtering rules to list mails are not auto-responded. > But even if it did appear before a list's rule, one mail per day is > hardly a problem. > > Hi, is there a how-to for setting up a rule like this? To answer you question: It depends. Sometimes I receive auto response like "Hey I won't be at my desk for the next 30 mins because I went to get some launch." No email should be that important that one cannot wait like a day for an replay. If it is that important one should just use the phone. On the other side: If the recipient is that important he should hire a secretary or something like that. Going to a place without internet or on vacation for weeks, ok it is correct to inform the sender, that the email will not be read until whenever. kh
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
fe...@crowfix.com schrieb: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 05:31:06PM +0200, Xavier Parizet wrote: > >> As his autoresponder respond to all mail received to his mail address, i >> sent at 12h15 a mail "faking" hist email address to >> gentoo-user+unsubscr...@lists.gentoo.org and it did the trick... >> Now i think he is spammed with "you're not subscribed to this list" mlmmj >> mails... > > Nice! I toast you with a virtual beer. > Wouldn't that mean, that the server hosting the mailing list still is on heavy duty? That still would evect the functionality of the server and in the end of our list, wouldn't it? kh
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 05:31:06PM +0200, Xavier Parizet wrote: > As his autoresponder respond to all mail received to his mail address, i > sent at 12h15 a mail "faking" hist email address to > gentoo-user+unsubscr...@lists.gentoo.org and it did the trick... > Now i think he is spammed with "you're not subscribed to this list" mlmmj > mails... Nice! I toast you with a virtual beer. -- ... _._. ._ ._. . _._. ._. ___ .__ ._. . .__. ._ .. ._. Felix Finch: scarecrow repairman & rocket surgeon / fe...@crowfix.com GPG = E987 4493 C860 246C 3B1E 6477 7838 76E9 182E 8151 ITAR license #4933 I've found a solution to Fermat's Last Theorem but I see I've run out of room o
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:12:02 +0200, Jarry wrote: > > That's a little harsh. He may not even know his company's > > auto-responder is so hideously broken. > > IMHO, setting up any kind of auto-responder is a *huge* mistake. Any kind? Even a well functioning one that send no more than one mail to any address in a day? I use a procmail rule to take care of this, it appears after list filtering rules to list mails are not auto-responded. But even if it did appear before a list's rule, one mail per day is hardly a problem. -- Neil Bothwick Top Oxymorons Number 48: freewill offering signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
Toppost due to iPhone. I just made a measure through gmail to block the source of the epic-spammed autoreplies. On Apr 28, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann > wrote: On Dienstag 28 April 2009, Jarry wrote: Daniel de Oliveira wrote: Yes, moderating him. He deserves much more than that. Life-time ban for that stupidity would be adequate... Jarry you are a flawless person. you never made a little mistake in your life time. Did you?
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:24:31 +0200, Jarry wrote: Yes, moderating him. He deserves much more than that. Life-time ban for that stupidity would be adequate... That's a little harsh. He may not even know his company's auto-responder is so hideously broken. IMHO, setting up any kind of auto-responder is a *huge* mistake. A few years ago I've seen our company's mail-server crashed because of such a "mistake". Damage to business estimated to 1e5 US$. And a fellow-worker fired out. That was a little more harsh... Jarry -- ___ This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists! Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted.
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Dienstag 28 April 2009, Jarry wrote: Daniel de Oliveira wrote: Yes, moderating him. He deserves much more than that. Life-time ban for that stupidity would be adequate... you are a flawless person. you never made a little mistake in your life time. Did you? Yes I did. And I've been paying for my mistakes. Myself! Jarry -- ___ This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists! Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted.
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:24:31 +0200, Jarry wrote: > > Yes, moderating him. > > He deserves much more than that. > Life-time ban for that stupidity would be adequate... That's a little harsh. He may not even know his company's auto-responder is so hideously broken. -- Neil Bothwick Nostalgia isn't what it used to be. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
When I say to moderate him its just for a little time, not life-time. On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:29, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > On Dienstag 28 April 2009, Jarry wrote: >> Daniel de Oliveira wrote: >> > Yes, moderating him. >> >> He deserves much more than that. >> Life-time ban for that stupidity would be adequate... >> >> Jarry > > you are a flawless person. you never made a little mistake in your life time. > Did you? > > > > -- Daniel de Oliveira Network and System Analyst Security Specialist IBM RISC Specialist IBM Storage Specialist Linux/Unix Specialist Linux User #: 405334
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:24:31 +0200, Jarry wrote: > Daniel de Oliveira wrote: >> Yes, moderating him. As his autoresponder respond to all mail received to his mail address, i sent at 12h15 a mail "faking" hist email address to gentoo-user+unsubscr...@lists.gentoo.org and it did the trick... Now i think he is spammed with "you're not subscribed to this list" mlmmj mails... HTH... > > He deserves much more than that. > Life-time ban for that stupidity would be adequate... > > Jarry -- Xavier Parizet YaGB : http://gentooist.com GPG :DC81 6FEE 6EBE FCE4 1C18 202F E575 4A5D 036D 1408
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
On Dienstag 28 April 2009, Jarry wrote: > Daniel de Oliveira wrote: > > Yes, moderating him. > > He deserves much more than that. > Life-time ban for that stupidity would be adequate... > > Jarry you are a flawless person. you never made a little mistake in your life time. Did you?
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
Daniel de Oliveira wrote: Yes, moderating him. He deserves much more than that. Life-time ban for that stupidity would be adequate... Jarry -- ___ This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists! Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted.
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:10:45 -0300, Daniel de Oliveira wrote: > Where is the moderation? This list is not moderated. > Man, its so stupid using Vacancy-auto-respond > on a mail that you read a lot of mailing lists. We'll receive that to > every mail sended to him. It's more a case of a broken auto-responder, it's even replying to its own mails. A correctly implemented responder would only send one mail to any particular address in a defined period. One mail per day from this bot would be tolerable. -- Neil Bothwick Got kleptomania? Be sure to take something for it. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
Where is the moderation? Man, its so stupid using Vacancy-auto-respond on a mail that you read a lot of mailing lists. We'll receive that to every mail sended to him. On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:06, Daniel de Oliveira wrote: > Yes, moderating him. > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 06:46, zhen wrote: >> Hi. >> >> It seems that somebody has started autoresponder for his email. And now >> it is replying to it's own replies to lists once an hour. It seems like >> an endless mail loop. Is there way to stop it? >> >> Best regards, >> Evgeniy B. >> >> > > > > -- > Daniel de Oliveira > > Network and System Analyst > Security Specialist > IBM RISC Specialist > IBM Storage Specialist > Linux/Unix Specialist > Linux User #: 405334 > -- Daniel de Oliveira Network and System Analyst Security Specialist IBM RISC Specialist IBM Storage Specialist Linux/Unix Specialist Linux User #: 405334
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
Yes, moderating him. On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 06:46, zhen wrote: > Hi. > > It seems that somebody has started autoresponder for his email. And now > it is replying to it's own replies to lists once an hour. It seems like > an endless mail loop. Is there way to stop it? > > Best regards, > Evgeniy B. > > -- Daniel de Oliveira Network and System Analyst Security Specialist IBM RISC Specialist IBM Storage Specialist Linux/Unix Specialist Linux User #: 405334
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:46:46 +0400, zhen wrote: > It seems that somebody has started autoresponder for his email. And now > it is replying to it's own replies to lists once an hour. It seems like > an endless mail loop. Is there way to stop it? A bug report has already been filed, we'll just have to wait for a list admin to remove the subscriber. Meanwhile, killfiling is a reasonable solution. -- Neil Bothwick Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?" signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
The list admins have been notified - you can track the issue at https://bugs.gentoo.org/267740 AllenJB zhen wrote: Hi. It seems that somebody has started autoresponder for his email. And now it is replying to it's own replies to lists once an hour. It seems like an endless mail loop. Is there way to stop it? Best regards, Evgeniy B.
Re: [gentoo-user] autorespond
zhen schrieb: > Hi. > > It seems that somebody has started autoresponder for his email. And now > it is replying to it's own replies to lists once an hour. It seems like > an endless mail loop. Is there way to stop it? > > Best regards, > Evgeniy B. > I called his company and they promissed to stop it as fast as possible. kh
