Tim Pierce writes:
> My vacation program replied, and apparently that
> was enough to confirm my subscription.
A bounce is not a reply. All bouncers, including vacation programs,
should return messages to the envelope sender. The envelope sender for
an ezmlm confirmation request is a trash addres
On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, Tim Pierce wrote:
> Agreed. But you shouldn't vacation-reply to a subscribe confirmation
> message, either, or it defeats the whole purpose. I believe that
> anyone running a BSD vacation program could be forge-subscribed to
> this list, since ezmlm is basically guaranteed
Tim Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Agreed. But you shouldn't vacation-reply to a subscribe confirmation
| message, either, or it defeats the whole purpose.
So maybe confirmation messages shouldn't be generated by
replying to the envelope sender. Put the confirmation
address in the message
On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 08:35:27AM -0600, Fred Lindberg wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 20:55:55 -0500, Tim Pierce wrote:
>
> >On this list in particular, when you subscribe, the ezmlm confirmation
> >message doesn't include any of the magic cookies traditionally
> >associated with daemon messages (
I have a suggestion in this regard. Vacation programs should be using a
precedence of junk (IMO not that of any standard) in their replies, so that
perhaps ezmlm could ignore confirmations that have a precedence of junk.
On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 20:55:55 -0500, Tim Pierce wrote:
>On this list in particular, when you subscribe, the ezmlm confirmation
>message doesn't include any of the magic cookies traditionally
>associated with daemon messages (such as "Precedence: junk" or
>"qmail-request"). My vacation program rep
>Lists should also identify themselves as lists so vacation programs
>don't reply to them.
>
>On this list in particular, when you subscribe, the ezmlm confirmation
>message doesn't include any of the magic cookies traditionally
>associated with daemon messages (such as "Precedence: junk" or
On Tue, Mar 16, 1999 at 10:08:27AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 06:13:15PM -0500,
> Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > | But yes, it would consider these warnings as bounces.
> >
> > It also considers vacation
On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 06:13:15PM -0500,
Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | But yes, it would consider these warnings as bounces.
>
> It also considers vacation messages to be bounces. :-(
Vacation programs shouldn't be replying to lists
On Mon, 15 Mar 1999 18:22:50 -0500, Justin Bell wrote:
>but vacation messages shouldnt be replying to list email, right?
1. ezmlm lists can be set up via DIR/headeradd to contain "Precedence:
Bulk". Vacation programs should not respond to these. ezmlm-idx since
quite a while does this by default
On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 06:13:15PM -0500, Scott Schwartz wrote:
# Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
# | But yes, it would consider these warnings as bounces.
#
# It also considers vacation messages to be bounces. :-(
#
but vacation messages shouldnt be replying to list email, right?
-
On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 06:13:15PM -0500, Scott Schwartz wrote:
> Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | But yes, it would consider these warnings as bounces.
>
> It also considers vacation messages to be bounces. :-(
Yes, but these are normally only sent out once.. Unless.. hmm.. damn.
Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| But yes, it would consider these warnings as bounces.
It also considers vacation messages to be bounces. :-(
On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 10:16:28PM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 10:05:04PM +0100, Stefan Paletta wrote:
> > Samuel Dries-Daffner wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> > > We recently sent mail to another school and received what I call a
> > > "mini-bounce" that follows.
> >
> > http
On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 10:05:04PM +0100, Stefan Paletta wrote:
> Samuel Dries-Daffner wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> > We recently sent mail to another school and received what I call a
> > "mini-bounce" that follows.
>
> http://www.erols.com/bwightman/qmail/
While we're on this I always wondered ho
15 matches
Mail list logo
