RE: Out of office/vacation messages
Alright, I'll bite. What are the "NANOG-approved" MTA/MUAs for this list that sort by conversation thread, run on Windows, send in wrapped plain text, have NANOG-approved OOO messages, and otherwise don't cause a flamestorm on the list? -----Original Message----- From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 11:02 PM To: Mark Prior Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Out of office/vacation messages On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 15:03:39 +1030, Mark Prior <mrp@mrp.net> said:
Why do so many supposedly clueful people have their vacation message system respond to mailing list email?
Because it's *impossible* to get one of the most popular MUAs to understand that mail with an SMTP MAIL FROM 'owner-*@*' shouldn't be replied to. So it's just a special case of "why do clueful people use software from that vendor"?. And since it's the holidays, let's just leave it at that.
Top posting, Pete Templin wrote:
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message ...
Alright, I'll bite.
What are the "NANOG-approved" MTA/MUAs for this list that sort by conversation thread, run on Windows, send in wrapped plain text, have NANOG-approved OOO messages, and otherwise don't cause a flamestorm on the list?
-----Original Message----- From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 11:02 PM To: Mark Prior Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Out of office/vacation messages
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 15:03:39 +1030, Mark Prior <mrp@mrp.net> said:
Why do so many supposedly clueful people have their vacation message system respond to mailing list email?
Because it's *impossible* to get one of the most popular MUAs to understand that mail with an SMTP MAIL FROM 'owner-*@*' shouldn't be replied to.
So it's just a special case of "why do clueful people use software from that vendor"?. And since it's the holidays, let's just leave it at that.
Well, let's see: - sort by conversation thread, Are there any that don't? - run on Windows, Oops, I see your problem. No self-respecting network operator runs any M$W boxen as an MTA, so Templin is an imposter/troll. Some foolish individuals run M$W MUA. I don't such things myself, but both Netscape and Eudora work fine for me on MacOS, so I'd expect them to behave on M$W. - send in wrapped plain text, Hmmm, I usually just wrap my own. But both Netscape and Eudora have that capability for the operationally challenged. - have NANOG-approved OOO messages, Folks running reasonable MTA/MUA don't have this problem, so why don't you check the message headers to see what clueful folks are using, rather than trolling the list? You can see all the message headers, can't you? -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
- run on Windows, Oops, I see your problem. No self-respecting network operator runs any M$W boxen as an MTA, so Templin is an imposter/troll.
This isnt true, the majority run Windows (at least thats what I see in various meetings and from the user-agent headers) I use OSX but I still have a windows laptop and virtual PC as unfortunately the world forces me to require the use of Windows to interact with their documents and applications...
Some foolish individuals run M$W MUA. I don't such things myself, but both Netscape and Eudora work fine for me on MacOS, so I'd expect them to behave on M$W.
See above, I have Outlook on my Windows boxes in order to receive the odd bits of mail requiring me to open their attachments on Windows.
- have NANOG-approved OOO messages, Folks running reasonable MTA/MUA don't have this problem, so why don't you check the message headers to see what clueful folks are using, rather than trolling the list? You can see all the message headers, can't you?
I dont think this is 'nanog approved' its basic netiquette, the complaints are that you shouldnt reply to emails not sent to you personally eg list mail as we dont care that your not receiving messages today! Actually Nanog isnt too bad considering how many people are on it ooo messages are quite rare, compared to various other much smaller lists (100s of people on them) which I'm on and regularly generate dozens of ooo's at a time.. Steve
On 2 Jan 2004, at 10:44, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
- run on Windows, Oops, I see your problem. No self-respecting network operator runs any M$W boxen as an MTA, so Templin is an imposter/troll.
This isnt true, the majority run Windows (at least thats what I see in various meetings and from the user-agent headers)
I'm not arguing with your conclusion, but your reasoning is a little broken. Only a small proportion of the nanog list membership attend meetings, and those that do don't necessarily provide a representative distribution (of any kind). Similarly, the user-agent headers you see are from people on nanog-post; I am told the nanog list is much bigger. Joe
On Jan 2, 2004, at 10:31 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2 Jan 2004, at 10:44, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
- run on Windows, Oops, I see your problem. No self-respecting network operator runs any M$W boxen as an MTA, so Templin is an imposter/troll.
This isnt true, the majority run Windows (at least thats what I see in various meetings and from the user-agent headers)
I'm not arguing with your conclusion, but your reasoning is a little broken. Only a small proportion of the nanog list membership attend meetings, and those that do don't necessarily provide a representative distribution (of any kind).
Similarly, the user-agent headers you see are from people on nanog-post; I am told the nanog list is much bigger.
it does bear noting that there's a difference between an MUA (UA == user agent) and an MTA (TA == transfer agent). rereading the discussion w/that in mind might put a different spin on it for you. ;-) -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC
On Jan 2, 2004, at 10:31 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2 Jan 2004, at 10:44, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
- run on Windows, Oops, I see your problem. No self-respecting network operator runs any M$W boxen as an MTA, so Templin is an imposter/troll.
This isnt true, the majority run Windows (at least thats what I see in various meetings and from the user-agent headers)
I'm not arguing with your conclusion, but your reasoning is a little broken. Only a small proportion of the nanog list membership attend meetings, and those that do don't necessarily provide a representative distribution (of any kind).
Similarly, the user-agent headers you see are from people on nanog-post; I am told the nanog list is much bigger.
Ok true, perhaps I can get a job in journalism doing statistics ;) But anyway, I'm still pretty sure even with my flawed reasoning that most people are using Windows and those that arent are you or I who dont hold a typical netops position as there is still this insistence in most companies that all employees use standard hardware, OS and software.
it does bear noting that there's a difference between an MUA (UA == user agent) and an MTA (TA == transfer agent). rereading the discussion w/that in mind might put a different spin on it for you. ;-)
Heh, yeah I missed that! Ok well again using my broken reasoning I still reckon based on observation that most regular companies use MS for their MTA and that the ones using *nix are mainly ISPs. Applying this to network operators and its a bit hazy but again based on experience very often internal mail falls under IT and IT consists of a bunch of MSCEs running Exchange.... I can check this using the Received headers posted to nanog and a quick grep shows a rather large number of Microsoft boxes.. Steve (going off on a tangent)
1. MTA is unlikely to create a user-agent header (unless it's really broken). Stephen's comments seemed to be directed at MUA where the initial statement was about MTA. I, frankly, agree that no self-respecting network operator runs an MTA on M$W, but, I also feel there are a lot of network operators that demonstrate little self respect by running M$W MTAs. 2. I do understand that there are a variety of reasons someone may feel that they _HAVE_ to run am M$W MUA, and, for those people, I feel sympathy and encourage them to join the resistance. 3. Vacation messages you see would also be from people on nanog-post, since, if you aren't on nanog-post, your vacation message will get dropped and not be posted to the list. Owen --On Friday, January 2, 2004 11:31 AM -0500 Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org> wrote:
On 2 Jan 2004, at 10:44, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
- run on Windows, Oops, I see your problem. No self-respecting network operator runs any M$W boxen as an MTA, so Templin is an imposter/troll.
This isnt true, the majority run Windows (at least that's what I see in various meetings and from the user-agent headers)
I'm not arguing with your conclusion, but your reasoning is a little broken. Only a small proportion of the nanog list membership attend meetings, and those that do don't necessarily provide a representative distribution (of any kind).
Similarly, the user-agent headers you see are from people on nanog-post; I am told the nanog list is much bigger.
Joe
-- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
Subject: Re: Out of office/vacation messages Date: Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 10:32:23AM -0500 Quoting William Allen Simpson (wsimpson@greendragon.com):
What are the "NANOG-approved" MTA/MUAs for this list that sort by conversation thread, run on Windows, send in wrapped plain text, have NANOG-approved OOO messages, and otherwise don't cause a flamestorm on the list?
Mulberry. -- Måns Nilsson Systems Specialist +46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE Psychoanalysis?? I thought this was a nude rap session!!!
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 10:32:23AM -0500, William Allen Simpson wrote:
- run on Windows, Oops, I see your problem. No self-respecting network operator runs any M$W boxen as an MTA, so Templin is an imposter/troll.
Sometimes you have no choice but to run a Windows mail client - it's called your company forcing you to a standard mailer. It's not something I have liked doing in the past, but having your management heavily disaprove of using something outside of standard is usually not a good thing. Thanks- Rachel -- All men whilst they are awake are in one common world; but each of them, when he is asleep, is in a world of his own. - Plutarch
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 10:13:28 PST, "Rachel K. Warren" <rachel@plur.net> said:
Sometimes you have no choice but to run a Windows mail client - it's called your company forcing you to a standard mailer. It's not something I have liked doing in the past, but having your management heavily disaprove of using something outside of standard is usually not a good thing.
Wave the "security issue" flag at them on this one. There's a number of good security reasons to not use software that blabs in response to mailing list mail: 1) If this is a reply to a message from a mailing list that you usually "lurk" on, your subscription to the list has just been revealed (probably to every person who is posting - possibly to the entire list if your responder replied to the list). 2) The fact you are "Out of your office" could reveal information to a hacker. 2a) The hacker now knows that you aren't watching your PC very carefully, and thus it's possibly a better target for a hacking attempt. 2b) If the hacker has gotten a message "George Smith is at a client site until Aug 30", he can try calling your company and saying "This is George.. I'm at the client's site, and I can't get to the corporate net. Can you reset my password so I can get the documents I need to close this deal?". This is an amazingly effective "social engineering" attack. 2c) The software most responsible for these errant messages is also well-known for multiple security issues - and quite often even puts its exact version in the X-Mailer header. This allows an attacker to send you a malicious e-mail message (specially selected for your software version), for you to read when you get back (and are probably buried under many messages and not paying as much attention to the contents as you should). If that doesn't work, point the PHB at this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3290251.stm Only 2 out of the top 10 viruses/worms for last year did *NOT* target Outlook. Then ask the PHB if they have any legal criterion of "due care" that would put them at risk of being negligent for continuing to run their business in a known dangerous manner.
The hacker now knows that you aren't watching your PC very carefully, and thus it's possibly a better target for a hacking attempt.
Does an out of office message indicate I'm not watching my PC? That's a little unclear to me. Wouldn't these messages come from an Exchange server and not my PC necessarily, at least in the case of Microsoft products? My PC could just as easily be shutdown for the holidays, no? 2ndly, off the top of my head, it's unclear to me that it's an easy matter to map someone's e-mail address to a specific machine on their network. I guess perhaps the machine might be named for that individual perhaps. Maybe someone has worked on that one a bit more???
This allows an attacker to send you a malicious e-mail message (specially selected for your software version), for you to read when you get back (and are probably buried under many messages and not paying as much attention to the contents as you should).
This type of negligence doesn't seem to be limited to those with out of office replies set. I've seen people repeatedly do that even after being specifically warned not to as well. :) Dave Olverson On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 10:13:28 PST, "Rachel K. Warren" <rachel@plur.net> said:
Sometimes you have no choice but to run a Windows mail client - it's called your company forcing you to a standard mailer. It's not something I have liked doing in the past, but having your management heavily disaprove of using something outside of standard is usually not a good thing.
Wave the "security issue" flag at them on this one. There's a number of good security reasons to not use software that blabs in response to mailing list mail:
1) If this is a reply to a message from a mailing list that you usually "lurk" on, your subscription to the list has just been revealed (probably to every person who is posting - possibly to the entire list if your responder replied to the list).
2) The fact you are "Out of your office" could reveal information to a hacker.
2a) The hacker now knows that you aren't watching your PC very carefully, and thus it's possibly a better target for a hacking attempt.
2b) If the hacker has gotten a message "George Smith is at a client site until Aug 30", he can try calling your company and saying "This is George.. I'm at the client's site, and I can't get to the corporate net. Can you reset my password so I can get the documents I need to close this deal?". This is an amazingly effective "social engineering" attack.
2c) The software most responsible for these errant messages is also well-known for multiple security issues - and quite often even puts its exact version in the X-Mailer header. This allows an attacker to send you a malicious e-mail message (specially selected for your software version), for you to read when you get back (and are probably buried under many messages and not paying as much attention to the contents as you should).
If that doesn't work, point the PHB at this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3290251.stm
Only 2 out of the top 10 viruses/worms for last year did *NOT* target Outlook.
Then ask the PHB if they have any legal criterion of "due care" that would put them at risk of being negligent for continuing to run their business in a known dangerous manner.
Rachel K. Warren wrote:
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 10:32:23AM -0500, William Allen Simpson wrote:
- run on Windows, Oops, I see your problem. No self-respecting network operator runs any M$W boxen as an MTA, so Templin is an imposter/troll.
Sometimes you have no choice but to run a Windows mail client - it's called your company forcing you to a standard mailer. It's not something I have
Might I suggest posting from home on your free time, using a standardized setup that doesn't annoy others? I fail to see why a public forum on a public openly standardized network needs to tolerate the private policies of individual members that negatively impact others on the forum. You want to participate? Play by the rules. In short, I do not think claiming "My company makes me do it" is a valid defense. Joe The Horse Lives
liked doing in the past, but having your management heavily disaprove of using something outside of standard is usually not a good thing.
Thanks-
Rachel
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 06:58:46PM -0500, Joe Maimon wrote:
Rachel K. Warren wrote:
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 10:32:23AM -0500, William Allen Simpson wrote:
- run on Windows, Oops, I see your problem. No self-respecting network operator runs any M$W boxen as an MTA, so Templin is an imposter/troll.
Sometimes you have no choice but to run a Windows mail client - it's called your company forcing you to a standard mailer. It's not something I have
It has been noted by other people on NANOG that I am talking about an MUA instead of an MTA. That is correct, I got them mixed up by accident, but my argument still stands, just substitute MTA for MUA.
Might I suggest posting from home on your free time, using a standardized setup that doesn't annoy others?
What does this have to do with this thread? For your information, when I read and post to NANOG I actually do it from home, using MUTT as an MUA and sendmail as an MTA.
I fail to see why a public forum on a public openly standardized network needs to tolerate the private policies of individual members that negatively impact others on the forum.
You want to participate? Play by the rules.
What are you talking about? You aren't making any sense.
In short, I do not think claiming "My company makes me do it" is a valid defense.
Frankly, your supposedly argument isn't very valid either. Thanks- Rachel -- All men whilst they are awake are in one common world; but each of them, when he is asleep, is in a world of his own. - Plutarch
participants (11)
-
David Scott Olverson -
Joe Abley -
Joe Maimon -
Mans Nilsson -
Owen DeLong -
Pete Templin -
Rachel K. Warren -
Stephen J. Wilcox -
steve ulrich -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
William Allen Simpson