RE: too many "Out of Office AutoReply"
David wrote: > The main reason is > for security - you wouldn't necessarily want your competitors > to be able > to mail your people and find out you all went to Vegas for > the weekend. > Exactly for this reason I never use the out-of-the office feature. I consider it the electronic equivalent of putting the proverbial note on the frontdoor of my house stating "no milk this and next week" (which means "dear would-be burglar, come back one of these nights, no-one will kick you out") Leen.
Re[2]: too many "Out of Office AutoReply"
David, Why in god's name would any email program worth 2 cents not have this feature? Gene [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thursday, June 28, 2001, 10:32:16 PM, David wrote: >> David, >> >> Thanks for the step-by-step instructions. I'm curious, >> though - the usual heuristic for most "vacation >> auto-responders" has been to >> not send responses to any message which didn't include the >> recipient's address in the to or cc header field. Is there a way >> to configure Exchange to use that heuristic? >> >> Keith > At this time, there is no way to configure Exchange to do that. Most of > our customer feedback has been that our current configuration scheme, > which allows per-domain configuration, meets our customers' needs. > Based on recent customer input (including this thread's input), we are > currently evaluating adding that feature. I can't promise when it will > make it into the product, but I do agree that it is a good thing to do. > David > --- > David Lemson > Lead Program Manager > Exchange Server > Microsoft Corporation > [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
¤j¹Ú·Q®a!¸Ñ¶}±zªº¹Ú¹Ò±K½X...
Title: ¡u¤j¹Ú·Q®a¡v¸Ñ¶}¹Ú¹Ò±K½X¡I
¥DÃD¤@:¡u³¨³½¡v
·N«ä¦³ÂI¹³¬O¡u³¨ª÷Àt´B¡v¡C¹Ú¤¤¹Ú¨ì¦Û¤v¦b³¨³½¡A§Ú̦b¸Ñ¹Úªº®ÉÔ¡A»{¬°¬O«ü¨Ì¾a¥~¤O¨ÓÀò±o°]´I¡A¦Ó³oºØ¥~¤O©O¡A¯S§O¬O«ü±N©M´I¶Q¤H®a½lµ²±B¬ù¡A·N§Y°ù¶Q©d¡B¶ù¶Q¤Ò¡C¤£¹L¦pªG§A¬O¤@Ó³¨³½ªº·R¦nªÌ¡A¥¤é´N±`±`·QµÛ³¨³½ªººØºØ¡A¨º»ò§A¦b¹Ú¤¤¹Ú¨ì³¨³½¡A«h¤£ºâ¦b§Ú̦¹¦¸¸Ñ¹Úªº½d³ò¤º¡C¨Ì¹Ú¤¤©Ò³¨¤Wªº³½ªººØÃþ¤£
¦P¡A§@¹ÚªÌ¤]´N·|»P¤£¦P¨¥÷ªº¤Hµ²±B¡C·íµM¡A°ß¤@ªÖ©wªº¨Æ±¡¬O¹ï¤èªº¨¤À¥²©w«D´I§Y¶Q¡C
(1)ª÷³½
(2)¤j¥ÕÃT
(3)ÃU³½
(4)¦w±d³½
(5)§d³¢³½
¹Ú¨ì³¨¨ì¤£¦Pªº³½¡A¸Ñ¹Úªºµª®×¥ç¤£¦PClick
Here
¥DÃD¤G:¡uªøD¡v
¥H¦r±¤W¨Ó¬Ý¡A²{¥N¤H¹Ú¨ì¦Û¤vªøD¡A¥i¯à¬O¤@Ó·|Åý¦Û¤v¤ß±¡¤£¦nªº¹Ú¡C¦ý¬O¸Ñ¹Úªº®Ú¾Ú¤j¦h¨Ó¦Û¥j®Ñ¡A¹ï©ó¥j¥N¤H¨Ó»¡¦pªG¯à°÷ªøD¡A¥Nªí¬OºÖ®ð°÷¡A¤~¯à°÷¦³ªøD
ªº¾÷·|¡C¥H°]¹B¨Ó¬Ý¡A¨Ì·Ó¹Ú¤¤¹Ú¨ì¦Û¤vªøDªº³¡¦ì¤£¦P¡Aªí¥Ü·|¦³¤£¦Pªº°]·½¹B¡C
(1)¤âÁuªøD
(2)²ä¤lªøD
(3)¤â´xªøD
(4)¨{¤lªøD
(5)©Ê¾¹©xªøD
(6)§¾ªÑªøD
(7)ÁyªøD
(8)»LªøD
(9)¨Å©ÐªøD
¹Ú¨ì¨Å餣¦P³¡¦ìªøD¡A¸Ñ¹Úªºµª®×¥ç¤£¦PClick
Here
¥DÃD¤T:¡u¤ë«G¡v
¤ë«G¬O³±¬X¡B©M¶¶¡A¥Nªí¥À¡B©d¡B¤k¤H¥H¤ÎÀR¯v¡B¶Â·t¡B¥¦wµ¥¤HÃþÛ²z©M¦ÛµM²{¶Hªº
¶H¼x¡C¦]¦¹¹Ú¨£¤ë«G¬O¨Æ·~¿³¶©¡B¬ü¦n±B«Ãªº¦N¥ü¡C¦b¦¹§Ų́ӽͽ͹ڨ£«G¦b·P±¡¡B±B«Ã¤Wªº¦N¤¿¡C
(1) ¹Ú¨£¡u¤ë«G¡v
(2) ¹Ú¦Û¤v¶]¤J¤ë«G¸Ì
(3) ¹Ú¨ì¦³´XÓ¤ë«G¦b¤Ñ¤W
(4) ¹Ú¨£¤ë«G¤J¤á
(5) ¹Ú¨£¿N»«ô¤ë
(6) ¹Ú¶³¾B¤ë«G
(7) ¹Ú¤ô¤¤¨£¤ë
(8) ¹Ú¤ë«G¯}µõ
(9) ¹Ú¤ë«G±¼¤U¨Ó
¹Ú¨ì¤ë«Gªº¤£¦Pª¬ªp¡A¸Ñ¹Úªºµª®×¥ç¤£¦PClick
Here
¥DÃD¥|:¡u¦çªA¡v
¦çªA¬O¤H©Ò³Ð³yªº¡A©Ò¥H·í¥¦¥X²{¦b¹Ú¤¤ªº®ÉÔ¡A²{¹ê¥Í¬¡¤¤ªº¤å¤Æ¤ß²z´N¬Û·íµ{«×¦a¼v
ÅT¸Ñ¹Úªºª¬ªp¡C©Ò¥H¥H¶Ç²Îªº¸Ñ¹Úªk¨Ó»¡¡A¥un¹Ú¨£²{¹ê¥Í¬¡¤¤·|ı±o¤£¦nªº±¡ªp¡A¦p¥V¬ï®L¦ç¡B¦ç«a¤£¾ãµ¥¡A³£Äݩ󤣦N¤§¹Ú¡C¦¹³B¥u½×z¹Ú¦³Ãö¦çªAªº¹Ú¹Ò®É¡A¦b¥Í¬¡¤¤¹J®çªáªº±¡ªp¡C
(1) ¹Ú¬ï·s¦ç
(2) ¹Ú¬ï«B¦ç
(3) ¹Ú¬ï¬õ¦ç
(4) ¹Ú¬ï¥Õ¦ç
(5) ¹Ú«Ü¦b¥G¨¤Wªº¦çªA
(6) ¹Ú¬~¦çªA
(7) ¹Ú¦çªAż
(8) ¹Ú»P¤H¦@¦ç
(9) ¹Úµ¹¤H¦çªA
(10) ¹Ú¨£¦Û¤v²æ¦çªA
(11) ¹Ú¦çªA¯}
¹Ú¨ì¦çªAªº¤£¦Pª¬ªp¡A¸Ñ¹Úªºµª®×¥ç¤£¦PClick
Here
¥DÃD¤:¡u²î¡v
¡u¦à²îªÌ¡A¸ü¸Uª«¡AÀ٦ʤt¡A¦w¦æ¤d¨½¡C±o´¥¥HÀÙ¡A¸Ñ·ªi¤§ÀI¡A¹w¥ü©ó¹í´K¡AÁפ¿¤Æ¦N¡v
--¨ú¦Û©P¤½¸Ñ¹Ú¡I ¹Ú¨ì²î²í¡A¶H¼xµÛ¹ÚµÛ¤H¥Íªº²{ª¬¡A¹ï¥¼¨Óªº®i±æ¡C¦¹³B¥u½×z¹Ú¨£²î¡A¦b¤u§@¤Wªº¹w§i©Î±¡ªpÅã¥Ü¡C
(1) ¹Ú¼²î´çªe
(2) ¤p²î´«¤j²î
(3) ²î¦b¸¦æ
(4) »Pªø½ú¼²î
(5) ²î©ó´äÆW®ü°ì¤¤¯è¦æ¶¶ºZ
(6) ·s²î¤U¤ô
¹Ú¨ì²îªº¤£¦Pª¬ªp¡A¸Ñ¹Úªºµª®×¥ç¤£¦PClick
Here
¥DÃD¤»:¡u¼X¹Ó¡v
¦ò¬¥¤@¼w»{¬°´Ã¤ì¦b¹wª¾¹Úªº³õ¦X¡A©¹©¹¶H¼x¦º¤`¡C³o¨Ã«D¹w§i§@¹ÚªÌ·|¦º¤`¡A¦Ó¬O¶H¼x¥L¨Ã䪺¤Hªº¦º¤`¡C¦b¶H¼x¹Úªº³õ¦X¡A«h¬O·N¨ýµÛ§@¹ÚªÌ¹ï¤w¸g¤`¬Gªº¤H¡A¦³µÛµLªº«s«ä¡A¤ß²zÁ`·QµÛ¥L¡A¤~·|¥H´Ã¤ì¶H¼x¹ï¥Lªº«s«ä¡C¦b¤¤°êªºÁ¿ªk¤¤¡A¥H¤ñ¶Hªº¹Ú¨Ó»¡¡A±Nn·í©x©Î±N¦³
¿ú³£·|¹Ú¨£´Ã§÷¡C¦¹³B§Ú̽×z¤u§@¤Wªº¤É¾¡B¨D¾±¡ªp¡A¦]¦¹§Ṳ́]±NÂX¥R¨Ó½×z¨ì¹Ú¹Ò¤¤¥X²{¡u¼X¹Ó¡v¡C
(1) ¹Ú´Ã§÷
(2) ¹Ú´Ã§÷¤J¦v
(3) ¹Ú¦b¹Ó¤¤¨£¨ì´Ã§÷
(4) ¹Ú¨£¼X¹Ó
(5) ¹Ú¹Ó¶é¤¤¦³³\¦h¹Ó
(6) ¹Ú¦º¤Hª¦¥X¼X¹Ó
(7) ¹Ú¼X¹Ó´Ý¯}¤£³ô
(8) ¹ÚªÅ¹Ó
(9) ¼X¹Ó¥Í¾ð
¹Ú¨ì¼X¹Óªº¤£¦Pª¬ªp¡A¸Ñ¹Úªºµª®×¥ç¤£¦PClick
Here
¡·§ó¦hªº¸Ñ¹Ú¡A·q½ÐÂê©w¤T¥ß³£·|¥x¡A7¤ë2¤é°_¶g¤@±ß¶¡22:00¼½¥X¡ã
§Úªº¦n±d³ø¡G¥uµ¹±z·Qnªº¦n±d¸ê°T¡A±z¤£nªº§Ṳ́£°e¡I
§ó¦n±dªº¬O¡G±z¨C¬Ý¤@«Ê¦n±d³ø¡A©ÎÂI¿ï¡u«e©¹¬¡°Êºô¶¡v¡ASeednet§Y¦^õX±z¤WºôÂI¼Æ¡I
q¾\©Î¨ú®øq¾\½Ð³s½u¨ì¦n±d³øºô¯¸¡Ghttp://egoody.seed.net.tw/
Seednet·PÁ±zªºq¾\
RE: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP
Just to stir-up this soup some more, why is there no "web services" standard protocol that lets my client submit "API" requests via HTML forms programmatically. I can understand some framing standard for returned data but I find it just plain stupid that I should have some code running at *both* client & server end before I can even begin testing my application! If only I could submit my "API" request via an HTML form, I could begin testing server code without writing a line of client code. Sole reason I personally have junked all so called web service "API call" protocols for my application. Would welcome any comments. Manoj Dhooria Geometric Software [www.geometricsoftware.com] Bombay -Original Message- From: Lee Rafalow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:08 PM To: Roy T. Fielding Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP Roy, I feel compelled to respond out of self defense but will not engage in a lengthy discussion about personal motivations or other meta-issues. Suffice it to say that I think a certain amount of skepticism in this line of work is healthy but, like it or not, engineering is an economic discipline. I'm getting paid to produce a standard that is consistent with other things the industry is doing (and, yes, my employer too). No marketing bull, just market realities: SOAP is real. (Please note the semantic difference an "ing" suffix makes not to mention the word "bull.") If, at the end of the process, we agree that SOAP is not a technically sound foundation for our solution, fine; let's just make sure that there IS a process that isn't a foregone conclusion for ICAP. I believe we'll find that SOAP is a reasonable foundation; it's being offered as an alternative working hypothesis. I stand by my comments about ICAP: it was developed in isolation without considering the larger picture of what's happening in the industry for calling remote web services and I do think, therefore, that it's a flash in the pan. Time may tell otherwise and may even tell that SOAP will have been a flash in the pan, but I doubt it...too much money being invested by MANY companies to make it work from both a code and, yes, a market perspective. And engineering is an economic discipline. I suggest we get on with the work at hand. Lee M. Rafalow Voice: (919) 254-4455, Fax: (919) 254-6243 IBM Internet Technology Management IBM Corporation P.O. Box 12195, BRQA/502 RTP, NC 27709 USA Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lee Rafalow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 7:27 PM Subject: Re: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP > On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 08:41:06AM -0400, Lee Rafalow wrote: > > > > I haven't taken a poll so I can't comment on how many of the icap > > implementers are rethinking their implementations. When we polled people at > > the last OPES workshop, there were only a few people who knew anything about > > SOAP. Thus my previous assertion that icap was created in isolation (and is > > a flash in the pan). I assume that as rational IETF participants, when we > > do a careful comparison and as people learn more about it, we'll see some > > movement of opinion. > > Excuse me, Lee, but I am getting tired of the marketing bull associated > with SOAP. The fact of the matter is that SOAP was defined by a far > smaller group of people with no open industry involvement and then moved > to a pay-per-view pseudo-standards body for ratification. It is not and > never has been implemented in real Web services, in spite of the marketing > splash of "Web Services". This doesn't mean it is better or worse than > iCAP, but it is completely foolish to disparage iCAP for being developed > outside the normal IETF process when SOAP didn't even come close to that. > > My view on OPES is that if nobody has implemented it, there is no point > in standardizing it. There is no reason why people can't implement an > iCAP-like RPC mechanism in the form of SOAP over BEEP (or whatever), > but until someone does it and actually deploys it for a real application, > any claims about its suitability for this purpose are just marketing bull. > > Just to be clear, I don't like iCAP as a protocol (I have implemented an > earlier version) and I don't like SOAP as a protocol (even though the > only real implementation of SOAP is now an Apache project), but more > importantly the problem with them related to OPES is that an RPC callout > mechanism has no business being inserted into the Web architecture (which > was designed for pipe-and-filter style processing of streams). There is > no way that an RPC mechanism will ever be as efficient for this task > as a proxy/gateway mechanism that operates on the data in-stream. > > Roy >
Re: Re[2]: too many "Out of Office AutoReply"
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 04:08:20AM -0400, Gene Gaines wrote: > Why in god's name would any email program worth 2 cents > not have this feature? That's easy; for a long time (although this seems to be less true today), Microsoft apparently had a strong bias of trying very hard to hire the best and the brightest --- of people fresh out of college. Heaven forfend that they actually hire people with industry experience. As a result, a lot of things which most people would consider common sense and common practice don't actually happen until after the first couple of versions of the program are released and people scream bloody murder. (After all, good vacation hueristics have been around for well over a decade.) However, when MS Exchange finally has this feature, no doubt their marketing folks will trumpet how they "invented" it. After all, this is the sort of thing which is why they claim they need the "freedom to innovate". - Ted
too many "Out of Office AutoReply"
Hi, I think this topic started somewhere because of my "Out of Office AutoReply" emails. Sorry for the incovenience, Im working out of Portugal in London, but i deactivated this function remotely. Concerning this matter, its a mickeysoft tool - Yes - confirmed. I have always a lot of people trying to contact me concerning Urgent issues and its necessary to give them an easy path to reach me - this tool of autoreply is usefull. I can sugest something logic: - since the tool for filtering "Out of Office AutoReply" on the origin will not be developed in short time, and there will be for sure another users using "Out of Office AutoReply", the smart mailing-list mail-server should apply a rule filtered by subject because the subject field seems to be always the same "Out of Office AutoReply:". so, the rule would be: if subject field starts with string "Out of Office AutoReply:", the mail is dropped else proceed. regards, j0rge card0s0
Re: too many "Out of Office AutoReply"
j0rge, But, that might filter some "Out of Office AutoReply" messages that are intended for me. A more general solution would be to look for header fields beginning "X-" which contains certain words. "Microsoft" would good. Gene [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Friday, June 29, 2001, 9:40:03 AM, CARDOSO wrote: > Hi, > I think this topic started somewhere because of my "Out of Office AutoReply" > emails. > Sorry for the incovenience, Im working out of Portugal in London, but i > deactivated this function remotely. > Concerning this matter, its a mickeysoft tool - Yes - confirmed. I have > always a lot of people trying to contact me concerning Urgent issues and its > necessary to give them an easy path to reach me - this tool of autoreply is > usefull. > I can sugest something logic: > - since the tool for filtering "Out of Office AutoReply" on the origin will > not be developed in short time, and there will be for sure another users > using "Out of Office AutoReply", the smart mailing-list mail-server should > apply a rule filtered by subject because the subject field seems to be > always the same "Out of Office AutoReply:". > so, > the rule would be: if subject field starts with string "Out of Office > AutoReply:", the mail is dropped else proceed. > regards, > j0rge card0s0 --
Re: too many "Out of Office AutoReply"
If one were to do that then the problem would not be fixed in the long term either... but thanks for the comment. On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, CARDOSO Jorge Miguel wrote: > Hi, > > I think this topic started somewhere because of my "Out of Office AutoReply" > emails. > Sorry for the incovenience, Im working out of Portugal in London, but i > deactivated this function remotely. > Concerning this matter, its a mickeysoft tool - Yes - confirmed. I have > always a lot of people trying to contact me concerning Urgent issues and its > necessary to give them an easy path to reach me - this tool of autoreply is > usefull. > > I can sugest something logic: > > - since the tool for filtering "Out of Office AutoReply" on the origin will > not be developed in short time, and there will be for sure another users > using "Out of Office AutoReply", the smart mailing-list mail-server should > apply a rule filtered by subject because the subject field seems to be > always the same "Out of Office AutoReply:". > > so, > the rule would be: if subject field starts with string "Out of Office > AutoReply:", the mail is dropped else proceed. > > > regards, > j0rge card0s0 > A. James Lewis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Open Source Specialists http://www.entora.co.uk/ Tel: +44 (0)701 0723686 Fax: +44 (0)870 3214368
Re: too many "Out of Office AutoReply"
> - since the tool for filtering "Out of Office AutoReply" on the origin will > not be developed in short time, and there will be for sure another users > using "Out of Office AutoReply", the smart mailing-list mail-server should > apply a rule filtered by subject because the subject field seems to be > always the same "Out of Office AutoReply:". this doesn't work, because the "out of office autoreply" messages are not sent via the list server - they are sent directly to the author of the subject message. This is arguably another problem with such messages - they should probably go to the envelope return address (from the SMTP MAIL FROM command or the return-path header field) rather than to the author's address (from the >From header field). Keith
Re: too many "Out of Office AutoReply"
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: too many "Out of Office AutoReply"
> This is arguably another problem with such messages - they should probably > go to the envelope return address (from the SMTP MAIL FROM command or the > return-path header field) rather than to the author's address (from the > From header field). That will get them sent to the mailing list manager, who certainly will not care to learn which of the thousands of mailing list members are on vacation at any given time. Of course, the mailing list manager also does not care to learn which mailing list members have exhausted their disk quotas either, but hundreds of mailservers are very happy to tell him to please send the message again later. RFC 1211 should be required reading for anyone developing a mail server. Perhaps then the developers would at least take mailing lists into account; it's pretty clear that most of these systems are designed on the assumption that mail is one-to-one. With regard to the reply from Microsoft, note that the issue of sending vacation messages to the Internet is completely orthogonal to the issue of sending vacation messages in response to a message from a mailing list.
Re: too many "Out of Office AutoReply"
> > This is arguably another problem with such messages - they should probably > > go to the envelope return address (from the SMTP MAIL FROM command or the > > return-path header field) rather than to the author's address (from the > > From header field). > > > That will get them sent to the mailing list manager, who certainly will not > care to learn which of the thousands of mailing list members are on vacation > at any given time. Actually, these days it's increasingly likely to get sent to a "bounced message parser" that tries to parse bounced messages and discover which recipients' addresses are consistently failing. That parser can also be taught to ignore "out of office autoreplies". > Of course, the mailing list manager also does not care to learn which > mailing list members have exhausted their disk quotas either, but hundreds > of mailservers are very happy to tell him to please send the message again > later. When the reporting MTAs use DSN format (and report the proper status codes for this condition) the bounced mail parser can treat disk quota failures differently from "no such user" and other more permanent conditions, and avoid removing list recipients for temporary disk quota failures. Keith
Re: too many "Out of Office AutoReply"
At 9:30 AM -0400 6/29/01, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: >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, we'll forgive you for not being an email expert. If you were one, you would know that this topic, and half a dozen of related meta-topics, have been beaten to death in the (finally dead!) DRUMS WG, and on the ietf-822 mailing list in the past six or seven years. A summary is that some implementations prefer to be strictly standards-compliant but piss off their users by not doing enough, while others choose to do things the users want even though it doesn't go strictly by the standards. In this case, there are non-standard headers in common use that give valuable heuristics to programs, and no standard ones that give the same information. Many companies, apparently including Microsoft, use that non-standard information. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
Re: too many "Out of Office AutoReply"
This solves the wrong problem. The problem is that the autoreply out of office thingy responds directly to the submitter of the listserved message, not to the listserver, so there is no filterable contact between the autoreply and the list server. Cheers...\Stef At 14:40 +0100 29/06/01, CARDOSO Jorge Miguel wrote: >Hi, > >I think this topic started somewhere because of my "Out of Office AutoReply" >emails. >Sorry for the incovenience, Im working out of Portugal in London, but i >deactivated this function remotely. >Concerning this matter, its a mickeysoft tool - Yes - confirmed. I have >always a lot of people trying to contact me concerning Urgent issues and its >necessary to give them an easy path to reach me - this tool of autoreply is >usefull. > >I can sugest something logic: > >- since the tool for filtering "Out of Office AutoReply" on the origin will >not be developed in short time, and there will be for sure another users >using "Out of Office AutoReply", the smart mailing-list mail-server should >apply a rule filtered by subject because the subject field seems to be >always the same "Out of Office AutoReply:". > >so, >the rule would be: if subject field starts with string "Out of Office >AutoReply:", the mail is dropped else proceed. > > >regards, >j0rge card0s0
Re: too many "Out of Office AutoReply"
--On Friday, 29 June, 2001 09:02 -0700 "Paul Hoffman / IMC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve, we'll forgive you for not being an email expert. If you > were one, you would know that this topic, and half a dozen of > related meta-topics, have been beaten to death in the > (finally dead!) DRUMS WG, and on the ietf-822 mailing list in > the past six or seven years. A summary is that some > implementations prefer to be strictly standards-compliant but > piss off their users by not doing enough, while others choose > to do things the users want even though it doesn't go > strictly by the standards. In this case, there are > non-standard headers in common use that give valuable > heuristics to programs, and no standard ones that give the > same information. Many companies, apparently including > Microsoft, use that non-standard information. Paul, while I generally agree with your description of the problem, we _do_ have a standard in this case. RFC 2919 specifies some list-specific special headers. From episodic examinations of messages arriving here from various lists, it has gotten reasonably well implemented, almost certainly enough so to promote it to Draft Standard if someone does the work in the next few months. And nothing prevents a receiving MTA from observing the presence of those fields and using that information to suppress vacation/ out-of-office messages even if, for historical reasons, they also consider Precedence fields (or whatever). john
RE: Re[2]: too many "Out of Office AutoReply"
I have noticed that for the past few days , the IETF has been flooded with these so called "OUT OF OFFICE AUTOREPLY"..debate. But don't you ppl in IETF think that these mails are a way to intimidate the sender that the person to whom you are sending the mail is out of office or something..why do we make every small thing such a big issue? can we not use this medium(IETF) for someting better? I personally would like to receive some kind of ACK from the person whom I am trying to send a mailso that I am rest assured that the mail has reached himI agree that in case a mail does not reach the concerned ID we do get a mailer-deamon normally...yet i prefer this interaction/ SO LETS STOP THIS DISCUSSION RIGHT HERE...AND USE THE IETF FOR SOMETHING BETTER Ashutosh Agarwal [EMAIL PROTECTED] I trust I make myself obscure > -- > From: Theodore Tso[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 06:20 PM > To: Gene Gaines > Cc: David Lemson; Keith Moore; ietf > Subject: Re: Re[2]: too many "Out of Office AutoReply" > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 04:08:20AM -0400, Gene Gaines wrote: > > Why in god's name would any email program worth 2 cents > > not have this feature? > > That's easy; for a long time (although this seems to be less true > today), Microsoft apparently had a strong bias of trying very hard to > hire the best and the brightest --- of people fresh out of college. > Heaven forfend that they actually hire people with industry > experience. > > As a result, a lot of things which most people would consider common > sense and common practice don't actually happen until after the first > couple of versions of the program are released and people scream > bloody murder. (After all, good vacation hueristics have been around > for well over a decade.) > > However, when MS Exchange finally has this feature, no doubt their > marketing folks will trumpet how they "invented" it. After all, this > is the sort of thing which is why they claim they need the "freedom to > innovate". > > - Ted >
Re: too many "Out of Office AutoReply"
> >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. > > In this case, there are > non-standard headers in common use that give valuable heuristics to > programs, and no standard ones that give the same information. Many > companies, apparently including Microsoft, use that non-standard > information. Extension header fields are explicitly permitted by the standards, and (for better or worse) other vacation programs also recognize the Precedence field. So it's unfair to single out Microsoft for using it also. But although the heuristic is widely used, it has never been considered sufficient. Keith p.s. there are a lot of problems with Precedence, not the least of which are that it is used for at least 5 different things by different mail packages: for influencing queueing priority, deciding whether to return content in nondelivery reports, deciding whether to return a vacation message, indication of message importance, and as a loop prevention sentinel by mailing list software. There are probably others. Most of these uses do not conflict with one another, but occasionally they do. It's not exactly a robust mechanism.
Re: too many "Out of Office AutoReply"
At 1:23 PM -0400 6/29/01, John C Klensin wrote: >Paul, while I generally agree with your description of the >problem, we _do_ have a standard in this case. RFC 2919 >specifies some list-specific special headers. Correct. That standard was issued after all of the SMTP servers in question were released. (For those of you who don't want to look in the RFC archive, that RFC was issued in March 2001.) > From episodic >examinations of messages arriving here from various lists, it >has gotten reasonably well implemented, almost certainly enough >so to promote it to Draft Standard if someone does the work in >the next few months. But, of course, that won't help in the current case, because this list doesn't use the standard. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
Re: Re[2]: too many "Out of Office AutoReply"
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 23:05:18 +0530, Ashutosh Agarwal said: > I personally would like to receive some kind of ACK from the person whom I > am trying to send a mailso that I am rest assured that the mail has Some of us do *NOT* like getting 15 or 20 such messages from people we have never heard of, just because we post to the IETF or Bugtraq or Incidents mailing lists. How many responses did you get to *your* posting? The IETF list is relatively "clean" this week - but I *have* had days when I have gotten over *200* of these "Out of Clue AutoReply" in *ONE DAY*. And not one single solitary one was a result of a direct mail to that recipient - all 200 were nice replies to things I posted to the list. Over and over and over. I post 4 times in one day, these things are nice enough to tell me 4 times that day that yes, George is STILL out of the office and will be for the next week. Never mind that it: 1) it SHOULD keep track of who it replied to and not reply AGAIN for this invocation of "out of office". 2) it SHOULD NOT reply to mailing list postings. There *is* RFC2298 on how to get an ACK from the mail system. And guess what - it specifically says to not auto-reply if the origin seems to be a mailing list. From section 2.1: MDNs SHOULD NOT be sent automatically if the address in the Disposition-Notification-To header differs from the address in the Return-Path header (see RFC 822 [2]). In this case, confirmation from the user SHOULD be obtained, if possible. If obtaining consent is not possible (e.g., because the user is not online at the time), then an MDN SHOULD NOT be sent. /Valdis
