On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:42:45 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) Vadim Zeitlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:01:06 +0200 (CEST) Robert Vazan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > RV> Yes, but it filters *all* spam and loses *no* personal mail (in > theory). > > Yes. In practice I have strong doubts that it is going to never lose > mail. Do you have other reasons for this opinion besides people being lazy to reply? > RV> People do confirm autoresponses and I am willing to reply to > messages sent > RV> by other people's autoresponders. > > I never do it. Your case was the sole exception so far -- if I reply to > people who ask me about something (90% of mail which I receive) and they > send me this challenge message, it goes directly to the trash. And I'm > quite sure I'm far from being alone. Yes, however no other filter will work for me. I receive 99.9% spam and only one personal message about once a month -- this is hopeless for bayesian or heuristic filter. However, when I do receive personal mail, it's always very important (like your case) and people don't want such important message being lost and they do reply. This sort of filter perfectly fits my needs -- I receive no spam, yet I am always available when somebody needs to contact me. > Your message didn't contain any instructions about the password... If it didn't contain password then it's a bug, but I see one such message in queue and it does have instructions. I know very well that, however short I make it, people never read it. I mostly hope for default quoting to preserve the password. > RV> I currently find filtered messages manually, but this should be > RV> automated. > > Definitely, otherwise the system is worthless (I don't have time to look > through all the spam I get). As I receive personal mail rarely, it isn't that big problem to locate original mail whenever I receive autoreply confirmation. I understand that it may be important for other users. > Because you don't know about, nor can do anything at this moment, > transport level problems in a MUA. Imagine that the senders network is > temporarily down (or your SMTP server is) -- you should increase the > timeout (which I presume you have as if you don't get a reply in some > time > you have to delete the message or move it to trash or whatever). You > can't > do this in a MUA. As I have said I never delete anything. Several months old autoreply can still be confirmed. I'll probably add some expiration, because other users will need it, but I plan to make it three months by default and prevent users from setting it lower than two weeks. > I'm quite sure you can do this with procmail but I'm not an expert in > the > area nor do I want to become one. Procmail cannot parse headers, especially those with comma-delimited lists. There is quite some amount of other string and array processing that is a pain to do in shell. There is also this thing that I can publish incrementally with Mahogany, but I have to provide significant value before procmail version gets listed anywhere. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Mahogany-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mahogany-developers
