"Ronald F. Guilmette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > (It is hardly possible to have botched automatic responses any more > badly than has been done in TMDA.)
Hardly. > 1) It uses "Precedence: bulk" instead of "Precedence: junk", thus > flaunting and ignoring the PRE-EXISTING and well-established > conventions used by 80% of the world's other software packages > that automatically generate one-shot automated e-mail responses. As discussed, there is no standard for Precedence, and no single common practice for use of it. Some auto-responders use 'junk' for single-recipient messages, while others use 'bulk'. TMDA has chosen 'bulk' because 'junk' presents a risk that the former does not have. BTW, Mailman also uses 'bulk' in a single recipient context, for example, when it answers help requests. Because of these discrepencies, no filter should rely on the value of Precedence. It's one thing to merely detect its presence in order to inhibit an auto-responder loop, but any further analysis is risky. > 2) It fails to include the Message-ID: of the message that it is a > response to, either in an In-Reply-To: header or in a References: > header. False. Test by sending a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 3) Last and worst, this message was sent using a null envelope sender > address (represented here by "MAILER-DAEMON" which is how my own > local mail server interprets and re-writes null envelope sender > address). TMDA's use of a null envelope sender is perfectly in check with section 3.3 of the IETF draft `` Recommendations for Automatic Responses to Electronic Mail'' which you obviously have not read. > (In general, that is already true, but in e-mail, as > with everything else in life, _somebody_ always had to f**k it up > by hastily writing code without bothering to either (a) read the > relevant RFCs or to (b) study actual current, pre-existing, and > established practice.) Oh, the irony. > Because TMDA automated response messages fail to follow > well-established existing practice, not in one, or tow, but in ALL > THREE of the different ways noted above, those messages, unlike > automated response messages from other and more well crafted > software, will NOT make it past either my filter, or other > intelligent junk filters that make some attempt to allow in > legitimate automated response messages. In fact, each of the ``screw-ups'' you mention have no backing in standards, or even reality outside of your own mind. "Ronald's spam filter will reject messages that don't look like Ronald thinks they should" is a fine strategy for your personal filter, but don't expect anyone else to trust their mail to this. > X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.57 TMDA 0.57 is 18 months old and was very much a work in progress. Overall, please do your homework before making such vicious and unsubstantiated criticisms. _____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
