Out of office/vacation messages
Why do so many supposedly clueful people have their vacation message system respond to mailing list email? Now I'll get to see who also doesn't keep a list of addresses that have already been sent the out of office message :-) Mark.
Mark Prior wrote:
Why do so many supposedly clueful people have their vacation message system respond to mailing list email?
Now I'll get to see who also doesn't keep a list of addresses that have already been sent the out of office message :-)
Among the ones I found when I looked into the question with some rigor a few years ago were that mailing list traffic often no longer has a useful "precedence" value that was used to screen such mail. Another is the modern MUA and MUA-like programs don't know how to use any of the intelligence available to make the determination, or the interest in making it if the intelligence is there. One of the fun things is dealing with an MTA pair that don't think "time-to-live" applies to their important stuff that serve an MUA-like device that is certain that every one will want to know the finest details if their important master's travels, no matter what. In short--I don't think the protocol supports the notion of "vacation auto responders" any more, and the mineset of the modern customer is that their stuff is so important that surely everyone will need to know all there is to know.
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 14:18:46 -0600 "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <larrysheldon@cox.net> wrote:
Mark Prior wrote:
Why do so many supposedly clueful people have their vacation message system respond to mailing list email?
Now I'll get to see who also doesn't keep a list of addresses that have already been sent the out of office message :-)
Among the ones I found when I looked into the question with some rigor a few years ago were that mailing list traffic often no longer has a useful "precedence" value that was used to screen such mail.
nanog has a clear Precedence: bulk line in the header which is the defacto standard for handling this, so that can't be it. i think it's basically clueless IT staffs trying to reinvent a wheel that's been invented, usually badly, billions and billions of times over the past 30 or so years. richard -- Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
On Thu Dec 25, 2003 at 03:36:34PM -0500, Richard Welty wrote:
nanog has a clear Precedence: bulk line in the header which is the defacto standard for handling this, so that can't be it.
i think it's basically clueless IT staffs trying to reinvent a wheel that's been invented, usually badly, billions and billions of times over the past 30 or so years.
I don't think it's even that clever - I think it's just Out of Office assistant in Exchange / Outlook, which replies blindly to every email it sees, whether it's directly addressed to the recipient or not, whether it has Precedence: set or not... -- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1628 407720 (x(01)37720) | Si fractum Technology Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1628 407701 (x(01)37701) | non sit, noli BBC Internet Ops | Email: Simon.Lockhart@bbc.co.uk | id reficere BBC Technology, Maiden House, Vanwall Road, Maidenhead. SL6 4UB. UK
On Thursday 25 December 2003, at 14 h 18, "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <larrysheldon@cox.net> wrote:
Among the ones I found when I looked into the question with some rigor a few years ago were that mailing list traffic often no longer has a useful "precedence" value that was used to screen such mail.
There are several other tests to perform (if you are a reasonable program, that is), before sending an "Out of the office" message. An obvious one is to see wether your human owner is mentioned in the To: field. Unless the list explodes the messages in one explicit copy per recipient, this is enough.
On 2003-12-25, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net> wrote:
There are several other tests to perform (if you are a reasonable program, that is), before sending an "Out of the office" message. An obvious one is to see wether your human owner is mentioned in the To: field. Unless the list explodes the messages in one explicit copy per recipient, this is enough.
Of course, that doesn't work with a list that doesn't set reply-to the list. A lot of followups on nanog are reply-all, cc'd to the OP and anybody else who posted to a thread. srs
On 2003-12-25, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net> wrote:
There are several other tests to perform (if you are a reasonable program, that is), before sending an "Out of the office" message. An obvious one is to see wether your human owner is mentioned in the To: field. Unless the list explodes the messages in one explicit copy per recipient, this is enough.
* suresh@outblaze.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian) [Fri 26 Dec 2003, 02:01 CET]:
Of course, that doesn't work with a list that doesn't set reply-to the list.
A lot of followups on nanog are reply-all, cc'd to the OP and anybody else who posted to a thread.
Why would you enable O-o-O autoreplies if you're actively participating in a thread on a mailing list? (Stepping over the obvious question - why would you enable them in the first place, knowing that it annoys the hell out of a lot of people) -- Niels.
Niels Bakker writes on 12/25/2003 9:02 PM:
Why would you enable O-o-O autoreplies if you're actively participating in a thread on a mailing list?
(Stepping over the obvious question - why would you enable them in the first place, knowing that it annoys the hell out of a lot of people)
I wouldn't. But if I was using exchange and the exchange admin had enabled 'em ... the only two things to do are - * Setting up the list subscription to go to a pubic folder * A registry setting in Exchange 2003 srs -- srs (postmaster|suresh)@outblaze.com // gpg : EDEDEFB9 manager, outblaze.com security and antispam operations
On Friday 26 December 2003, at 0 h 50, suresh@outblaze.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian) wrote:
There are several other tests to perform (if you are a reasonable program, that is), before sending an "Out of the office" message. An obvious one is to see wether your human owner is mentioned in the To: field. Unless the list explodes the messages in one explicit copy per recipient, this is enough.
Of course, that doesn't work with a list that doesn't set reply-to the list.
Why? There is Mail-Followup-To and you can set Reply-To yourself. And you can always edit your headers (or have a software which can do it automatically like mutt). And the purpose was not to suppress *every* O-o-O message (they are very useful), just to lower the number and increase the average relevance.
Stephane Bortzmeyer writes on 12/26/2003 9:07 AM:
Why? There is Mail-Followup-To and you can set Reply-To yourself. And you can always edit your headers (or have a software which can do it automatically like mutt).
Look - just how many mail clients (other than mutt / gnus) honor the M-F-T header? And I am not trying to rehash the "reply-to the list is good / bad" thread, I don't really feel all that strongly about it. What I said is that the method proposed wouldn't cut down on OOOs to the list. srs -- srs (postmaster|suresh)@outblaze.com // gpg : EDEDEFB9 manager, outblaze.com security and antispam operations
On Friday 26 December 2003, at 9 h 11, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh@outblaze.com> wrote:
What I said is that the method proposed wouldn't cut down on OOOs to the list.
Yes, it will, in most cases. Let's take the following message: From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh@outblaze.com> cc: nanog@merit.edu Imagine that this message arrive in your mailbox. If your auto-responder writes to nanog@merit.edu, it is broken, period. With the algorithm I sent (which is used in all serious responders), it will reply only to bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net. Now, this message: From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net> To: nanog@merit.edu Imagine that this message arrive in your mailbox. If your auto-responder writes to *anyone*, it is broken, period. Now, this one: Reply-To: nanog@merit.edu From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh@outblaze.com> cc: nanog@merit.edu Here, there is a risk that even a proper auto-responder will write to nanog@merit.edu (at most once every N days, if the auto-responder is a serious one). But it is the only case. It should not happen but it can. Now, with the precedence ("belt and suspenders"): Reply-To: nanog@merit.edu From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh@outblaze.com> Precedence: bulk cc: nanog@merit.edu Again, if your auto-responder writes to *anyone*, it is broken, period.
Stephane Bortzmeyer writes on 12/26/2003 9:30 AM:
Again, if your auto-responder writes to *anyone*, it is broken, period.
Then again, most of the autoresponders being sent to the list are from Exchange. Which is broken, period. -- srs (postmaster|suresh)@outblaze.com // gpg : EDEDEFB9 manager, outblaze.com security and antispam operations
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
Again, if your auto-responder writes to *anyone*, it is broken, period.
Then again, most of the autoresponders being sent to the list are from Exchange. Which is broken, period.
Most? Not "all"?? When/if I get tired of getting the admin box full of such, I find unsubscribing the offender to be a good cure. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Why do so many supposedly clueful people have their vacation message system respond to mailing list email?
Among the ones I found when I looked into the question with some rigor a few years ago were that mailing list traffic often no longer has a useful "precedence" value that was used to screen such mail.
Surely regardless of the presence of precedence you would never autoreply to an email that wasnt addressed to you personally? Steve
"Stephen J. Wilcox" wrote:
Why do so many supposedly clueful people have their vacation message system respond to mailing list email?
Among the ones I found when I looked into the question with some rigor a few years ago were that mailing list traffic often no longer has a useful "precedence" value that was used to screen such mail.
Surely regardless of the presence of precedence you would never autoreply to an email that wasnt addressed to you personally?
I would not, not would an autoresponder that I would use. But this was addressed to me, cc NANOG, with no precedence indicated. My point, pretty much exactly.
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.
participants (11)
-
David Lesher -
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. -
Mark Prior -
Niels Bakker -
Richard Welty -
Simon Lockhart -
Stephane Bortzmeyer -
Stephen J. Wilcox -
Suresh Ramasubramanian -
suresh＠outblaze.com
-
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu