Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As to the question above -- I think Reply-To: list is actually more common.
Please read:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Setting Reply-To on a mailing list is simply incorrect behaviour.
> But that didn't in itself cause the problem. There were two other mistakes:
> (i) Using a broken vacation program. Such programs shouldn't use the
> Reply-To: but the From: or Sender: (ii) not unsubscribing from mailing lists
> when he went away. Note that either mistake would have been relatively
> harmless on its own.
You're right that the reply-to setting isn't relevant to this problem however.
But your prescriptions for correctly functioning vacation programs are wrong.
(i) vacation programs should use the envelope sender, they shouldn't look at
_any_ header at all for the return address.
(ii) they should ignore messages with Precedence bulk, where the user isn't
listed in the recipient headers anywhere and whatever other methods for
detecting mailing lists can be devised.
(iii) Such programs should keep a cache of already responded to addresses to
avoid responding to the same person twice.
(iv) Such programs should be able to recognize their own responses and not
respond to itself.
Personally I recommend banning any messages posted from Novell Groupwise 5.2
from posting to the list now. The vacation program he used is presumably built
in to that client and it's only a matter of time until someone else tries to
use it.
--
greg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
mailing list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe" in the main BODY OF THE MESSAGE.
List archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/analog-help@lists.isite.net/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
