Thanks for the note -- I'll resist the temptation to have procmail forward a copy of your instructions to anyone whose mailer sends such a note to the IETF list. But I'm disturbed that Exchange is using the Precedence: line as its selector mechanism. I'm hardly an email expert, but a quick grep through the RFCs turned up exactly one mention of the Precedence: header line. That reference is in 2076, which describes it as "Non-standard, controversial, discouraged". No RFC definition is cited. It would be nice if such an important feature relied only on standardized headers. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
- Re[2]: too many "Out of Office AutoReply&qu... Gene Gaines
- Re: Re[2]: too many "Out of Office Auto... Theodore Tso
- RE: too many "Out of Office AutoReply" Mak, L (Leen)
- too many "Out of Office AutoReply" CARDOSO Jorge Miguel
- Re: too many "Out of Office AutoReply" Gene Gaines
- Re: too many "Out of Office AutoReply" A James Lewis
- Re: too many "Out of Office AutoReply" Keith Moore
- Re: too many "Out of Office AutoReply&q... Eric Rosen
- Re: too many "Out of Office AutoRep... Keith Moore
- Re: too many "Out of Office AutoReply" Einar Stefferud
- Re: too many "Out of Office AutoReply" Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: too many "Out of Office AutoReply" Paul Hoffman / IMC
- Re: too many "Out of Office AutoReply&q... John C Klensin
- Re: too many "Out of Office AutoRep... Paul Hoffman / IMC
- Re: too many "Out of Office AutoReply&q... Keith Moore
- RE: Re[2]: too many "Out of Office AutoReply&quo... Ashutosh Agarwal
- Re: Re[2]: too many "Out of Office AutoRepl... Valdis . Kletnieks
- RE: Re[2]: too many "Out of Office AutoReply&quo... Bob Braden