Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(August 2003)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs
From: "John R Levine" <johnl @ iecc . com>
Date: 13 Aug 2003 21:16:14 -0400
To: "Mark E. Mallett" <mem @ mv . mv . com>
Cc: "list-managers @ greatcircle . com" <list-managers @ greatcircle . com>
Cleverness: None detected
In-reply-to: <20030814004101.GB12289@iridium.mv.net>
References: <Pine.OSX.4.56.0308131028470.516@betty.goldmark.private><6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1><20030813235913.25686.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> <20030814004101.GB12289@iridium.mv.net>

> Neither guideline is complete in itself.  For example I might do a
> normal group reply on a mailing list and get several individual
> addresses in the header and be lazy or forgetful and not fix it up

That's fine -- if I get a vacation message from someone to whom I've sent
mail directly, that's not a bug.

> Testing for "precedence: {list,bulk}" has been around for ages too--

I agree that's also a useful hint, but having written a lot of
autoresponders, once you get the To: and Cc: rule and perhaps special case
a few addresses like MAILER-DAEMON to avoid responding to bounces,
everything else is down in the noise.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.


References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: list policies about vacation programs
From: "Mark E. Mallett" <mem@mv.mv.com>
Next: Re: list policies about vacation programs
From: J C Lawrence <claw@kanga.nu>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: list policies about vacation programs
From: "Mark E. Mallett" <mem@mv.mv.com>
Next: Re: list policies about vacation programs
From: Berg Oswell <berg@eskimo.com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com