From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Aug 5 15:19:42 2003 Received: from goose.mail.pas.earthlink.net (pop02.sprintmail.com [207.217.120.172]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66342197748 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:19:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h-69-3-76-146.phndaz91.covad.net ([69.3.76.146] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by goose.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19kA9Z-0001IL-00; Tue, 05 Aug 2003 15:19:37 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030805151727.00bcdb78@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 15:19:40 -0700 To: "Brian Zaleski" , From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: AOL blocking In-Reply-To: References: <933972750.1058435362@[192.168.0.16]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200308/1 X-Sequence-Number: 1554 At 07:53 AM 7/17/2003, Brian Zaleski wrote: >A couple of months ago this happened to me. I wasn't on the open relay list, >but I just kept getting blocked. Finally I got in touch with one of their >postmasters (John 703.265.3543). Nice guy, very helpful. I have had absolutely no luck reaching this guy by telephone. He has not returned my calls after leaving my name, number and description of the problem on his voice mail. Any other suggestions? In the meantime, I found a piece of actual "spam" in my own mailbox this morning, advertising AOL for Small Business. How ironic! ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Aug 5 15:56:45 2003 Received: from b.smtp-out.sonic.net (b.smtp-out.sonic.net [208.201.224.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1985319646B for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 10505 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2003 22:56:43 -0000 Received: from ultra.sonic.net (208.201.224.22) by b.smtp-out.sonic.net with SMTP; 5 Aug 2003 22:56:43 -0000 Received: from sonic.net (bolt.sonic.net [208.201.242.18]) by ultra.sonic.net (8.11.6p2/8.8.5) with ESMTP id h75MuJp10761 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:56:19 -0700 X-envelope-info: Received: from satellite.vo.cnchost.com (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sonic.net (8.12.9/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h75Mugar016556 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:56:42 -0700 Message-Id: <6.0.0.10.0.20030805154622.04d368c0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: inet-list%vo.cnchost.com@127.0.0.1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.10 (Beta) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 15:48:25 -0700 To: From: JC Dill Subject: Re: AOL blocking In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030805151727.00bcdb78@pop.earthlink.net> References: <933972750.1058435362@[192.168.0.16]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200308/2 X-Sequence-Number: 1555 At 03:19 PM 8/5/2003, Bob Bish wrote: >At 07:53 AM 7/17/2003, Brian Zaleski wrote: >>A couple of months ago this happened to me. I wasn't on the open relay list, >>but I just kept getting blocked. Finally I got in touch with one of their >>postmasters (John 703.265.3543). Nice guy, very helpful. > > I have had absolutely no luck reaching this guy by telephone. Have you tried the other resources mentioned earlier? One of them is checking the information at postmaster.info.aol.com On that site I found another phone number for the postmaster team: Postmaster Hotline at 703-265-4670 Perhaps John has taken a vacation or leave of absence, and contacting the team will be a better bet. jc From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Aug 5 16:10:06 2003 Received: from mail-svr1.cs.utah.edu (brahma.cs.utah.edu [155.99.198.200]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5225D19782F for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 16:10:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vitesse.cs.utah.edu (vitesse.cs.utah.edu [155.99.197.71]) by mail-svr1.cs.utah.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03B73476C for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 17:10:04 -0600 (MDT) Received: by vitesse.cs.utah.edu (Postfix, from userid 124) id 9764E118357; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 17:10:04 -0600 (MDT) From: "Mark J. Bradakis" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: AOL blocking Message-Id: <20030805231004.9764E118357@vitesse.cs.utah.edu> Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 17:10:04 -0600 (MDT) X-Archive-Number: 200308/3 X-Sequence-Number: 1556 AOL Postmaster Hotline at 703-265-467 Last week I went through an hour or so of long distance calls with the single cell lifeforms who man this hotline. What fun. Never did actually hear why my server was getting blocked, though from what I can gather it was because when AOL did a reverse lookup on the IP for a message from virt.domain.one the DNS reply != virt.domain.one and when a message from virt.domain.two came in the reverse lookup didn't say virt.domain.two and when a message from virt.domain.three arrived, usw. But I guess all my long distance calls and a flurry of complaints from AOL customers did have some effect, as the messages are getting through to AOL customers now. mjb. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 6 15:58:00 2003 Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2FE31983FB for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 15:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h-69-3-76-146.phndaz91.covad.net ([69.3.76.146] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19kXED-00034s-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 06 Aug 2003 15:57:58 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030806155524.00bc4c58@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 15:57:59 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: AOL blocking In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.10.0.20030805154622.04d368c0@127.0.0.1> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030805151727.00bcdb78@pop.earthlink.net> <933972750.1058435362@[192.168.0.16]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200308/4 X-Sequence-Number: 1557 A few people from this list sent me another phone number to try. I intended to do so today right after I went through my daily ton of e-mail first thing this morning. Upon doing so, I discovered that AOL had un-blocked the lists. Perhaps John finally got to my voice-mail messages and solved the problem. Many thanks to all those who have helped with this. ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Aug 10 12:38:09 2003 Received: from smoe.org (jane.smoe.org [199.201.145.78]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4684A19B258; Sun, 10 Aug 2003 10:14:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smoe.org (ident-user@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smoe.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h7AHECVE014355; Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:14:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jeffw@localhost) by smoe.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h7AHEBIW014354; Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:14:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:14:11 -0400 From: Jeff Wasilko To: undisclosed-recipients: ; Subject: heads up about recent spammer & demime bug Message-ID: <20030810171411.GA13768@jane.smoe.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.99i X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . X-Archive-Number: 200308/5 X-Sequence-Number: 1558 If you're using demime to front-end majordomo, you should patch it to deal with a problem that was recently discovered. A spammer is sending out spam that claims to be text/html with a base64 attachment. However, there is no attachment. This causes the base64 decoder in demime to go into a loop. In my case, the demime processes grew to multi-hundred-meg and up to a gigabyte, while sendmail filled /var/spool/mqueue with the error messages that demime was emitting. The patch involves changing the line: if(length($dstr) % 4) { to: if(length($dstr) % 4 or length($dstr) == 0) { Please check the demime list archive at scifi.squawk.com if you want to get the patch from the author.... Thanks go to Nick (the demime author) for getting a patch out right away! -j From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Aug 10 19:56:17 2003 Received: from penguin.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [216.240.39.3]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E2461972E3 for ; Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:55:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postmodern.com (sfo.postmodern.com [216.240.39.8]) by penguin.postmodern.com (8.12.8/mcb-20021115-1) with ESMTP id h7B2t8Pw008260; Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:55:08 -0700 Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:55:21 -0700 Subject: Re: heads up about recent spammer & demime bug Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: List Managers List To: Jeff Wasilko From: "Michael C. Berch" In-Reply-To: <20030810171411.GA13768@jane.smoe.org> Message-Id: <3F949778-CBA7-11D7-968B-003065F94B0A@postmodern.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Archive-Number: 200308/6 X-Sequence-Number: 1559 On Sunday, August 10, 2003, at 10:14 AM, Jeff Wasilko wrote: > If you're using demime to front-end majordomo, you should patch > it to deal with a problem that was recently discovered. > > A spammer is sending out spam that claims to be text/html with a > base64 attachment. However, there is no attachment. This causes > the base64 decoder in demime to go into a loop. In my case, the > demime processes grew to multi-hundred-meg and up to a gigabyte, > while sendmail filled /var/spool/mqueue with the error messages > that demime was emitting. Thank you, thank you, thank you for posting that. I got up this morning and found my mail system moribund due to syslog filling up /var with error messages, and the load average pegged. I figured out that demime was choking, but could not find the bug, and was reduced to killing and dequeuing stuff and trying to figure out some way (maybe a milter) to exclude null encoded MIME bodies. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@greatcircle.com From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Aug 10 21:00:59 2003 Received: from kanga.nu (kanga.nu [157.22.12.214]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDFF4196C16 for ; Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:49:19 -0700 (PDT) Delivery-date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:49:19 -0700 Received: from pcp03381044pcs.groton01.ct.comcast.net ([68.54.123.49]:61936 helo=yabbie) by kanga.nu with asmtp (Exim 4.20 #1 (Debian)) id 19m3gN-00066b-Co; Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:49:19 -0700 Received: from yabbie ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by yabbie with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19m3gM-0002ae-00; Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:49:18 -0400 To: "Michael C. Berch" Cc: Jeff Wasilko , List Managers List Subject: Re: heads up about recent spammer & demime bug In-Reply-To: Message from "Michael C. Berch" of "Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:55:21 PDT." <3F949778-CBA7-11D7-968B-003065F94B0A@postmodern.com> References: <3F949778-CBA7-11D7-968B-003065F94B0A@postmodern.com> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:49:18 -0400 Message-ID: <9959.1060573758@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200308/7 X-Sequence-Number: 1560 On Sunday, August 10, 2003, at 10:14 AM, Jeff Wasilko wrote: > If you're using demime to front-end majordomo, you should patch it to > deal with a problem that was recently discovered. This problem is not unique to majordomo hosted lists. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Aug 11 03:23:20 2003 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net (sccrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.202.55]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3931195A4B for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 03:23:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wxsat.pinefields.com (pcp03067768pcs.frncna01.pa.comcast.net[68.81.198.80](untrusted sender)) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2003081110231601100c9r85e>; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:23:16 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wxsat.pinefields.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32295273B8 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 06:23:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by wxsat.pinefields.com (Postfix, from userid 520) id 9DB1D25518; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 06:23:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from n5470 (pavilion.pinefields.com [192.168.1.76]) by wxsat.pinefields.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7610524D92 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 06:23:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20030811061249.00b11ea8@wxsat> X-Sender: pavilion@wxsat X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 06:23:13 -0400 To: List-Managers From: "Richard B. Emerson" Subject: Looking for majordomo-friendly ISP Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none version=2.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12pre8 X-Archive-Number: 200308/8 X-Sequence-Number: 1561 Although I'm new to this list, I've been running small lists for almost 10 years. Recently I shifted to Comcast's broadband service from a local dialup provider and... surprise, surprise, Comcast is very unhappy about even 120+ mailings of 2K messages. I've added mail throttling and some other tweaks to make the traffic fit Comcast's restrictions but no joy. Traffic on the list in question (Baba-L, a sailboat-related list) varies from nothing for a few weeks to 5-6 messages a day and message size averages 2-3K. Currently the mail is sent via a perl script that I've developed over the years but I think it's time to move to majordomo. For a number of reasons, a web-based list is not an option so now I'm looking for an ISP who will support mail. The current contender is pair.com. Unfortunately, they don't support majordomo and, worse, their main mail tool is still in beta and being offered for free although it's clear the free ride will end at some point. When I ask for projected rates, I get "we don't know". So... I'm looking for a majordomo-friendly ISP that doesn't charge an arm and a leg to use it. Suggestions? Rick Emerson From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Aug 11 06:04:35 2003 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net (sccrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.202.64]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A88C195B2B for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 06:04:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wxsat.pinefields.com (pcp03067768pcs.frncna01.pa.comcast.net[68.81.198.80](untrusted sender)) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2003081113043301600gnmace>; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:04:33 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wxsat.pinefields.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1F6926EDB for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:04:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by wxsat.pinefields.com (Postfix, from userid 520) id 1AAC526D59; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:04:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from n5470 (pavilion.pinefields.com [192.168.1.76]) by wxsat.pinefields.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E011E2688B for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:04:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20030811090358.00b12008@wxsat> X-Sender: pavilion@wxsat X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:04:29 -0400 To: List-Managers From: "Richard B. Emerson" Subject: Re: Looking for majordomo-friendly ISP Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none version=2.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12pre8 X-Archive-Number: 200308/9 X-Sequence-Number: 1562 Thanks for the many useful leads! Rick Emerson From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Aug 11 14:32:30 2003 Received: from parrot.squawk.com (parrot.squawk.com [64.244.111.110]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A103195FD5 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:32:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (toshiba.squawk.com [199.74.151.118]) by parrot.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1CC325AFA2 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:32:14 -0400 (EDT) X-America-Has-Resolve: yes X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is insecure. Upgrade your Mail Program Now! Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20030811163427.2640c378@199.74.151.1> X-Sender: njs@199.74.151.1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 16:40:58 -0400 To: List Managers List From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: heads up about recent spammer & demime bug In-Reply-To: <9959.1060573758@kanga.nu> References: <3F949778-CBA7-11D7-968B-003065F94B0A@postmodern.com> <3F949778-CBA7-11D7-968B-003065F94B0A@postmodern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7282D60; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archive-Number: 200308/10 X-Sequence-Number: 1563 At 11:49 PM 2003-08-10 -0400, J C Lawrence wrote: >On Sunday, August 10, 2003, at 10:14 AM, Jeff Wasilko wrote: > > > If you're using demime to front-end majordomo, you should patch it to > > deal with a problem that was recently discovered. > >This problem is not unique to majordomo hosted lists. Yep. There is now a release of demime that incorporates the patch - the download site is here: http://majordomo.squawk.com/njs/demime/index.html If you are not running 1.1d, you are vulnerable to this. I found it the same way that I suspect everyone else did, and immediately realized, to my shame, that it was going to be a widespread problem, so I stayed up until I developed a patch and published it on the demime-l list. (I had to sync/reboot my system with sysrq - I could not get in with ctrl-alt-del - it announced that it would start shutting down things, and I waited, but a half hour later it had not yet killed any of the processes that were hanging things up, so I synched and remounted read only, then booted.) I realize that I should have published it here as well, the only reason I did not was because I was too tired to think by the time I finished figuring out the problem myself. If you are running an older version, or have a locally patched version you want to fix, the patch that was previously posted is good. -- He said: "There are people from Baath here reporting everything that goes on. There are cameras here recording our faces. If the Americans were to withdraw and everything were to return to the way it was before, we want to make sure that we survive the massacre that would follow as Baath go house to house killing anyone who voiced opposition to Saddam. In public, we always pledge our allegiance to Saddam, but in our hearts we feel something else." Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Aug 12 09:15:52 2003 Received: from osgood.unet.maine.edu (osgood.unet.maine.edu [130.111.39.64]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92EDD1963EA for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:15:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from polaris.umpi.maine.edu (polaris.umpi.maine.edu [130.111.208.87]) by osgood.unet.maine.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h7CGFjv02347 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:15:45 -0400 Received: from POLARIS/SpoolDir by polaris.umpi.maine.edu (Mercury 1.48); 12 Aug 03 12:12:01 -0500 Received: from SpoolDir by POLARIS (Mercury 1.48); 12 Aug 03 12:11:11 -0500 Received: from albert (130.111.208.178) by polaris.umpi.maine.edu (Mercury 1.48) with ESMTP; 12 Aug 03 12:11:05 -0500 From: "Anthony J. Albert" Organization: University of Maine at PI To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:11:04 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Web-based management & discussion Message-ID: <3F38D958.13504.E39FCE@localhost> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.12a) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Archive-Number: 200308/11 X-Sequence-Number: 1564 Dear list managers, I have been using majordomo for a while now, and have been pleased with its reliability and flexibility. What I'd like to know now, is if there is a way to provide: A) Web-based management of the lists for users/list owners B) Web-based "message board" interface, so that those that wish can access and post to threaded discussions in a particular mailing list, and everyone else can receive the messages via email, as normal. Is there such a package/add-on to majordomo? Anthony Albert =========================================================== Anthony J. Albert albert@umpi.maine.edu Systems and Software Support Specialist Postmaster Computer Services - University of Maine, Presque Isle "This is only temporary, unless it works." --- Red Green From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 08:13:09 2003 Received: from a.smtp-out.sonic.net (a.smtp-out.sonic.net [208.201.224.38]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E0595196407 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:13:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 18436 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2003 15:13:06 -0000 Received: from tempest.sonic.net (208.201.224.25) by a.smtp-out.sonic.net with SMTP; 13 Aug 2003 15:13:06 -0000 Received: from sonic.net (bolt.sonic.net [208.201.242.18]) by tempest.sonic.net (8.11.6p2/8.8.5) with ESMTP id h7DFD6T26755 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:13:06 -0700 X-envelope-info: Received: from satellite.vo.cnchost.com (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sonic.net (8.12.9/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h7DFD1ar014535 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:13:01 -0700 Message-Id: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: inet-list%vo.cnchost.com@127.0.0.1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.10 (Beta) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:04:57 -0700 To: listmanagers From: JC Dill Subject: list policies about vacation programs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200308/12 X-Sequence-Number: 1565 I help manage a mailing list for ISPs, so it's a given that everyone who *belongs* on this list is highly technical, although it is becoming increasingly common that we get subscribers who are not highly technical (although they do work at ISPs). A few days ago a vacation program started replying to every message posted, sending the reply back *to the list* (not to the message author). I posted to the list that I had set the miscreant's subscription to nomail and would lart him when he returned from his vacation. Since then I've received 2 forwarded emails regarding another subscriber's vacation autoresponder that is responding *to the author* for each post to the list. Since these messages are not going *to the list*, should I, as list owner, take any action (set their subscription to nomail, or ?) against the subscriber? I see a couple of issues: 1) The messages are not going to the list, but rather to the author. In some situations, it IS appropriate to let a list poster know that you will not be reading and replying to their post in a timely manner. But this is a pretty large list (~1000 subscribers), so maybe I shouldn't give any allowances for this, maybe I should insist that vacation programs not reply to posts to this list. 2) I don't yet know if the vacation program is sending more than one such message to each poster, e.g. if someone posts several times a day, are they getting a response per post, or just a response for the first post. Should my action be different if the vacation program sends multiple responses to the same poster? Weighing these 2 issues, my present gut feeling is that I should not take any action if the vacation program is only sending *one* response to each poster, but that I should set the miscreant to nomail if the vacation program sends multiple responses when someone is posting multiple times. Are there other factors I'm overlooking? What I am seeking is not so much "the answer" as to make sure I've asked all the right questions to help me come up with the answer for my list. Thanks! jc From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 08:47:55 2003 Received: from mail.rev.net (server02.rev.net [206.67.68.98]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9407F1962CD for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:47:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from admin3 (natpool2.rev.net [63.148.93.2] (may be forged)) by mail.rev.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h7DFlEHh013036 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:47:14 -0400 From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: listmanagers Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:47:14 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs Reply-To: bernie@fantasyfarm.com Message-ID: <3F3A2542.30978.12019F1@localhost> In-reply-to: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02a) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body X-Archived: msg.1060789634.tOXBIs@server02.rev.net X-Archive-Number: 200308/13 X-Sequence-Number: 1566 On 13 Aug 2003 at 8:04, JC Dill wrote: > Since then I've received 2 forwarded emails regarding another subscriber's > vacation autoresponder that is responding *to the author* for each post to > the list.... > > I see a couple of issues: > > 1) The messages are not going to the list, but rather to the author. In > some situations, it IS appropriate to let a list poster know that you will > not be reading and replying to their post in a timely manner. I don't think this is correct -- as a poster to the list, I don't think that there should be any expectation that any particular list-member will read my message promptly [indeed, if at all], and so I *DONT* want to see vacation messages for list postings under any circumstances. If I care that a particular person should see a particular post, I'll address a personal copy to them [and in that case, of course, the 'vacation' is just right]. So IMO, 'vacation' should never send back a notice other than to an individual for a directly-addressed message. Consider: if you have a list that has 100,000 people on it, if, say, 1/100 of them are on vacation at any given time, do you really want 1000 'I'm out of the office' messages from folk most of whom you've never heard of and know nothing about?? /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 08:52:38 2003 Received: from a34-mta01.direcway.com (a34-mta01.direcpc.com [66.82.4.90]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 159A4196774 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:52:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pc14678 (dpc6682114174.direcpc.com [66.82.114.174]) by a34-mta01.direcway.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.12 (built Feb 13 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HJK00HORERB45@a34-mta01.direcway.com> for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:52:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:51:12 -0700 From: Jim Poston Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs In-reply-to: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> To: listmanagers Cc: JC Dill Reply-To: poston@ml1.net Message-id: <3F39FC00.16795.231F4BA@localhost> Organization: The Information Dirt Road MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.12a) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body X-Archive-Number: 200308/14 X-Sequence-Number: 1567 On 13 Aug 2003 at 8:04, JC Dill wrote: > Weighing these 2 issues, my present gut feeling is that I should not take > any action if the vacation program is only sending *one* response to each > poster, but that I should set the miscreant to nomail if the vacation > program sends multiple responses when someone is posting multiple times. I agree. One vacation message to the author is OK, but unnecessary. Presumably the author was addressing the entire list, not that particular vacationing member. The author doesn't need to know that one list member is on vacation. He might not even know him. I wouldn't sanction this. Any vacation message to the list is forbidden and should be sanctioned. -- Jim poston@ml1.net << . Every person you meet knows something you don't. Learn. .>> -- Jim poston@ml1.net << . Don't you hate when that happens?? . >> From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 09:23:15 2003 Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21762196741 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.22] (lyme_fw [204.60.148.242]) by grassyhill.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h7DGN9m79392 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:23:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Envelope-To: Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:23:08 -0400 From: Tom Neff To: listmanagers Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs Message-ID: <44974734.1060777388@[192.168.0.22]> In-Reply-To: <3F39FC00.16795.231F4BA@localhost> References: <3F39FC00.16795.231F4BA@localhost> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0b4 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Archive-Number: 200308/15 X-Sequence-Number: 1568 This highlights the importance of posting to lists you manage, at least every so often. There are things that posting members see that the list admin doesn't necessarily see. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 09:28:32 2003 Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 825E519683A for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:28:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailspool2.panix.com (mailspool2.panix.com [166.84.1.79]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 473B648755; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:28:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from panix.com (cpe-66-87-152-33.il.sprintbbd.net [66.87.152.33]) by mailspool2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01DEE36DE1; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:28:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F3A6723.2080600@panix.com> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:28:19 -0500 From: "David W. Tamkin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JC Dill Cc: listmanagers Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs References: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200308/16 X-Sequence-Number: 1569 JC Dill wrote: > Weighing these 2 issues, my present gut feeling is that I should not take > any action if the vacation program is only sending *one* response to each > poster ... I disagree. The subscriber is running software that harvests addresses of posters to the list and sends them unnecessary, unsolicited, impersonal, off-topic email. Once per poster is too often. You should shut the subscription off as soon as you find out it's happening. It's not totally irrelevent that the motivation was thickheadedness rather than malice: when you tell the dodo why its subscription was suspended, your phrasing should take that into account, and if it's a first offense you should give the goof a second chance [contingent on an oath to use properly behaving vacation software or none at all]. But I'd say no, do not let it continue for the rest of the vacation. Many of those programs will send one vacation notice per "sender" per day rather than per absence, so tomorrow they'll be sent not only to posters who were quiet today but also to those who posted today and already got the big news. If it recurs during a future absence, ban the jerk. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 09:30:03 2003 Received: from kanga.nu (kanga.nu [157.22.12.214]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804EC1968C2 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Delivery-date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:30:01 -0700 Received: from pcp03381044pcs.groton01.ct.comcast.net ([68.54.123.49]:62254 helo=yabbie) by kanga.nu with asmtp (Exim 4.20 #1 (Debian)) id 19myVc-0003if-Pm; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:30:00 -0700 Received: from yabbie ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by yabbie with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19myVb-0008JQ-00; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:29:59 -0400 To: JC Dill Cc: listmanagers Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs In-Reply-To: Message from JC Dill of "Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:04:57 PDT." <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> References: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:29:59 -0400 Message-ID: <31955.1060792199@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200308/17 X-Sequence-Number: 1570 On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:04:57 -0700 JC Dill wrote: > Since these messages are not going *to the list*, should I, as list > owner, take any action (set their subscription to nomail, or ?) > against the subscriber? I follow a simple practice of walking the following scale based on repeat offenses: 1) Public warning. 2) Automatic public unsubscription, free to re-subscribe but not encouraged to. 3) Automtic publicly unsubscribe the domain (if a company), free to resubscribe but not encouraged to. If not a company domain, unsubscribe the poster and ban from resubscribing. 4) If a company automatic public unsubscription and banning of the entire domain from resubscribing . If offenses pile up over a short period of time, I'll climb the scale more rapidly (eg several people at different sites invoke rogue bots over a fortnight). > 1) The messages are not going to the list, but rather to the author. Frankly, I don't care. THey have shown themselves irresponsbile email system users and abusers of the email services and data I provide them as a list operator. > In some situations, it IS appropriate to let a list poster know that > you will not be reading and replying to their post in a timely manner. I have yet to find a case where this is actually true. Sure, it may be pleasant, but needed? No. > Should my action be different if the vacation program sends multiple > responses to the same poster? I just climb the above scale more rapidly, skipping levels, in those cases. > What I am seeking is not so much "the answer" as to make sure I've > asked all the right questions to help me come up with the answer for > my list. For me its a question of what expectations I have of my list posters, and what responsibilities they assume by being a list member. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 09:50:29 2003 Received: from mv.mv.com (iridium.mv.net [199.125.85.17]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6CCFF196660 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:50:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 16984 invoked by uid 101); 13 Aug 2003 12:50:26 -0400 From: "Mark E. Mallett" Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:50:26 -0400 To: "David W. Tamkin" Cc: JC Dill , listmanagers Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs Message-ID: <20030813165026.GN15928@iridium.mv.net> References: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> <3F3A6723.2080600@panix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F3A6723.2080600@panix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Archive-Number: 200308/18 X-Sequence-Number: 1571 On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:28:19AM -0500, David W. Tamkin wrote: > JC Dill wrote: > > >Weighing these 2 issues, my present gut feeling is that I should not take > >any action if the vacation program is only sending *one* response to each > >poster ... > > I disagree. The subscriber is running software that harvests addresses > of posters to the list and sends them unnecessary, unsolicited, > impersonal, off-topic email. Once per poster is too often. You should > shut the subscription off as soon as you find out it's happening. I agree that somebody with an autoresponder that is misbehaving should be removed or denied posting. However I would stop short of calling them names. Many people are simply making use of a program that they suppose will do the right thing. And new autoresponder programs show up now and then, sometimes where it seems that the author doesn't take recognized proper behaviour into account. I've been wondering for a while: does there exist a test site for autoresponders (for the developers of autoresponders)? Something that would send a number of prototypical mail messages to a particular address and see if the agent at that address is doing anything wrong? (Obviously it would have to have some way of not being abused.) -mm- PS: a recent draft: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-moore-auto-email-response-02.txt From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 10:20:50 2003 Received: from ntcorp.com (ntcorp.com [198.65.128.165]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2035E19676B for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:19:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (fidelman@localhost) by ntcorp.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h7DHGF515721; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:16:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:16:15 -0400 (EDT) From: X-X-Sender: To: JC Dill Cc: listmanagers Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200308/19 X-Sequence-Number: 1572 On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, JC Dill wrote: > (although they do work at ISPs). A few days ago a vacation program started > replying to every message posted, sending the reply back *to the list* (not > to the message author). I posted to the list that I had set the > miscreant's subscription to nomail and would lart him when he returned from > his vacation. don't you hate when that happens - sigh... > Since then I've received 2 forwarded emails regarding another subscriber's > vacation autoresponder that is responding *to the author* for each post to > the list. Since these messages are not going *to the list*, should I, as > list owner, take any action (set their subscription to nomail, or ?) > against the subscriber? personally, I don't do anything in these cases - this is not unreasonable behavior for a vacation autoresponder, and personally, there are times that I post something to a list and want to know that certain people haven't seen it -- the impact on the list and the subscribers is minimal (as compared to autoresponses that cause mail loops) Miles ************************************************************************** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President & Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director, Municipal Telecommunications Strategies Program 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 mfidelman@civicnet.org http://civic.net/ccn.html Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: "I Want My Internet!" ************************************************************************** From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 10:31:30 2003 Received: from mail.rev.net (server02.rev.net [206.67.68.98]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29B1F196660 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:31:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from admin3 (natpool2.rev.net [63.148.93.2] (may be forged)) by mail.rev.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h7DHVSjL005784 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:31:28 -0400 From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: listmanagers Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:31:27 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs Reply-To: bernie@fantasyfarm.com Message-ID: <3F3A3DAF.3149.17F8505@localhost> References: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02a) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body X-Archived: msg.1060795888.nzckOu@server02.rev.net X-Archive-Number: 200308/20 X-Sequence-Number: 1573 On 13 Aug 2003 at 13:16, mfidelman@ntcorp.com wrote: > personally, I don't do anything in these cases - this is not unreasonable > behavior for a vacation autoresponder, We disagree on this... > ..and personally, there are times > that I post something to a list and want to know that certain people > haven't seen it -- the impact on the list and the subscribers is minimal > (as compared to autoresponses that cause mail loops) That last is true, but if this became common do you really want hundreds, or thousands, of vacation messages in response to a post to a list, on the off chance that you'll be able to pick out 'certain people' from the mess that comes back? /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 10:34:04 2003 Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 894311967E5 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:34:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailspool2.panix.com (mailspool2.panix.com [166.84.1.79]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A465E48738 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:34:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from panix.com (cpe-66-87-152-33.il.sprintbbd.net [66.87.152.33]) by mailspool2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9156F36DE1 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:34:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F3A7681.7010300@panix.com> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:33:53 -0500 From: "David W. Tamkin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: listmanagers Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs References: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> <3F3A6723.2080600@panix.com> <20030813165026.GN15928@iridium.mv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200308/21 X-Sequence-Number: 1574 Mark Mallett wrote, > However I would stop short of calling them names. My uses of "jerk" and "goof" -- and surely also JC's of "miscreant" and the implicit "luser" in "lart" -- were intended strictly within the context of list-managers. I'm surprised that you couldn't figure that out, Mark. > I've been wondering for a while: does there exist a test > site for autoresponders (for the developers of autoresponders)? > Something that would send a number of prototypical mail messages to a > particular address and see if the agent at that address is doing > anything wrong? (Obviously it would have to have some way of not > being abused.) That would be a nice thing if it exists. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 10:39:52 2003 Received: from pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net (pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.122]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085311966BA for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:39:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 66-215-205-105.riv-eres.charterpipeline.net ([66.215.205.105] helo=lehel.goldmark.private) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19mzb6-00015R-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:39:44 -0700 Received: from betty.goldmark.private ([192.168.1.51]) by lehel.goldmark.private with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 19mzb6-0006cA-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:39:44 -0700 Received: from jeffrey (helo=localhost) by betty.goldmark.private with local-esmtp (Exim 4.10) id HJKJQ7-000859-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:39:43 -0700 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:39:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-X-Sender: jeffrey@betty.goldmark.private Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: listmanagers Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: References: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200308/22 X-Sequence-Number: 1575 On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, JC Dill wrote: > Since then I've received 2 forwarded emails regarding another subscriber's > vacation autoresponder that is responding *to the author* for each post to > the list. Since these messages are not going *to the list*, should I, as > list owner, take any action (set their subscription to nomail, or ?) > against the subscriber? When I get an autoresponse to something I posted to a list, I refer both the person on vacation and their postmaster to: http://www.goldmark.private/netrants/auto-resp/ If it is a list that I run and is not low volume, I will them to "nomail". I also send a message to the postmaster that if I get this from a second user at their site, I may bar all subscriptions to those domains. I do this as im implied threat (which I've never carried out). > Weighing these 2 issues, my present gut feeling is that I should not take > any action if the vacation program is only sending *one* response to each > poster, > Are there other factors I'm overlooking? Consider how it scales. Assume that at any given time, maybe 5% of your list are "on vacation". If they all used broken autoresponders, then a single post to a list of 1000 would generate 50 autoresponses to the sender. Subsequent posts from the same user would generate fewer, but still your policy does not scale well unless only a small minority of users use broken autoresponders. > What I am seeking is not so much "the answer" as to make sure I've asked > all the right questions to help me come up with the answer for my list. Every list is different. I'm providing you with the reasons why I follow a stricter policy than you suggested. -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice Hate spam? Boycott MCI! http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/anti-spam/mci/ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 10:51:05 2003 Received: from grouse.mail.pas.earthlink.net (grouse.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.116]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C721965FC for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:51:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 66-215-205-105.riv-eres.charterpipeline.net ([66.215.205.105] helo=lehel.goldmark.private) by grouse.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19mzm1-0005ld-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:51:01 -0700 Received: from betty.goldmark.private ([192.168.1.51]) by lehel.goldmark.private with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 19mzm1-0006cK-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:51:01 -0700 Received: from jeffrey (helo=localhost) by betty.goldmark.private with local-esmtp (Exim 4.10) id HJKK91-00085D-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:51:01 -0700 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:51:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-X-Sender: jeffrey@betty.goldmark.private Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: listmanagers Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200308/23 X-Sequence-Number: 1576 On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 mfidelman@ntcorp.com wrote: > personally, I don't do anything in these cases - this is not unreasonable > behavior for a vacation autoresponder, It is unreasonable. To use geek language: Consider how well it scales. To use environmentalist language: Consider how sustainable it is. To use economist langauge: Consider aggregate social welfare impact. To use philosophical language: Consider Kant's categorical imperative. All of that is saying that if everyone who is "out of the office" uses software that behaves in what you call "not unreasonable" then consider what happens with a list of 1000 where maybe 50 members are out-of-office. > and personally, there are times that I post something to a list and want > to know that certain people haven't seen it -- That may be the case for some small lists. On such lists you can ask people to configure their autoresponders to specifically respond (to individuals, once) to mail addressed to the list. But since that is not the general case with most lists, auto-responders should be configured properly. Again, I point people to my rant on this topic: http://www.goldmark.org/netrants/auto-resp/ > the impact on the list and the subscribers is minimal Not if everyone who was "out of office" did it. -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice Hate spam? Boycott MCI! http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/anti-spam/mci/ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 10:51:50 2003 Received: from b.smtp-out.sonic.net (b.smtp-out.sonic.net [208.201.224.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C2F57196836 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:51:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 5844 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2003 17:51:49 -0000 Received: from sub.sonic.net (208.201.224.8) by b.smtp-out.sonic.net with SMTP; 13 Aug 2003 17:51:49 -0000 Received: from sonic.net (bolt.sonic.net [208.201.242.18]) by sub.sonic.net (8.11.6p2/8.8.5) with ESMTP id h7DHpnB14701 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:51:49 -0700 X-envelope-info: Received: from satellite.vo.cnchost.com (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sonic.net (8.12.9/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h7DHpmar031518 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:51:48 -0700 Message-Id: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813104325.04296b38@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: inet-list%vo.cnchost.com@127.0.0.1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.10 (Beta) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:48:06 -0700 To: listmanagers From: JC Dill Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs In-Reply-To: <31955.1060792199@kanga.nu> References: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200308/24 X-Sequence-Number: 1577 At 09:29 AM 8/13/2003, J C Lawrence wrote: > > What I am seeking is not so much "the answer" as to make sure I've > > asked all the right questions to help me come up with the answer for > > my list. > >For me its a question of what expectations I have of my list posters, >and what responsibilities they assume by being a list member. I'd like to make a clarification about my role here. I've been administering this list for about 5 years, but I'm not the list owner. I do have a lot of say about what goes on (for instance, we recently migrated from majordomo to mailman, at my request), but for changes or clarification of list policy I have to come up with reasons why I want to set a certain policy and then present those reasons to the list owner and get his buy-in before implementing the policy. So, I can't just make policy "because it's my list and I say so". I have to be sure that I've considered all possible sides of the issue and that the policy I want to implement is really the best policy for the list as a whole, for the community as a whole. Thanks to everyone for your replies, they have been very helpful for me! jc From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 11:10:23 2003 Received: from mv.mv.com (iridium.mv.net [199.125.85.17]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 315C319674B for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:10:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 2659 invoked by uid 101); 13 Aug 2003 14:10:21 -0400 From: "Mark E. Mallett" Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:10:21 -0400 To: "David W. Tamkin" Cc: listmanagers Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs Message-ID: <20030813181021.GA24240@iridium.mv.net> References: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> <3F3A6723.2080600@panix.com> <20030813165026.GN15928@iridium.mv.net> <3F3A7681.7010300@panix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F3A7681.7010300@panix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Archive-Number: 200308/25 X-Sequence-Number: 1578 On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 12:33:53PM -0500, David W. Tamkin wrote: > Mark Mallett wrote, > > >However I would stop short of calling them names. > > My uses of "jerk" and "goof" -- and surely also JC's of "miscreant" and > the implicit "luser" in "lart" -- were intended strictly within the > context of list-managers. I'm surprised that you couldn't figure that > out, Mark. I'll take it as a compliment that you think better of me than I actually am :-) On the other hand I wasn't really chastising anybody. Just pointing out that the subscriber who makes use of a tool is not necessarily the one who should be thought badly of (i.e. rather than the tool's author). And mainly I was trying to find a way to seque into the question about a tester for authors of autoresponders. I happen to be contemplating implementing one or more such things as companions to a delivery tool, and I even though I think I know some things about how they ought to operate, I just know I am going to make at least one blunder along the way. Yours, -mm- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 11:11:29 2003 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C68AE19687F for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:11:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7DIB5fR021177 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:11:25 -0700 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv2.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7DIBGWI020429; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:11:24 -0700 Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , listmanagers To: Jeffrey Goldberg From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <8CB8F4FF-CDB9-11D7-8BF6-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Archive-Number: 200308/26 X-Sequence-Number: 1579 On Wednesday, August 13, 2003, at 10:51 AM, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 mfidelman@ntcorp.com wrote: > >> personally, I don't do anything in these cases - this is not >> unreasonable >> behavior for a vacation autoresponder, > > It is unreasonable. > > To use geek language: Consider how well it scales. > To use environmentalist language: Consider how sustainable it is. > To use economist langauge: Consider aggregate social welfare impact. > To use philosophical language: Consider Kant's categorical imperative. To consider the real world.... When you go on vacation, you tell your friends you're going on vacation. you tell your neighbors you're going on vacation. You call up the newspaper and stop delivery (or you don't, if your neighbors grab them for you). You do NOT call up the newspaper and leave a message for the reporters and columnists that you won't be able to read their stories for a couple of weeks. In this case, a mailing list is like that newspaper. Some folks stop mail list subscriptions while they're gone to avoid being swamped. Others let them pile up, and their mail server acts like a friendly neighbor and collects them for you until you can catch up (or throw them out). In either case, the people writing for that newspaper don't care, and don't need to know, that you're not reading their deathless prose every morning. As long as the mailing list reasonably identifies itself as a mailing list, you shouldn't be mailbotting it. There will be limited exceptions to that, but why should the sports editor care that you aren't around? Is your presence on that list so absolutely crucial that it won't survive your vacation or something? Mailbots serve no purpose responding to mail lists, unless you are the admin, the list is about you, or you are the official, designated expert everyone is listening to in the first place.... and in those cases, a message "I'm gonna be missing for a while" ought to suffice before you leave... >> and personally, there are times that I post something to a list and >> want >> to know that certain people haven't seen it -- > > That may be the case for some small lists. different case. This kind of small list is the community newsletter, not the newspaper. Different realities. Yes, your writer's group needs to know you won't be there for the next meeting, but telling them that when they post to the writer's group list isn't the right way to do that, anyway. They deserve advance notice. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 11:18:30 2003 Received: from b.smtp-out.sonic.net (b.smtp-out.sonic.net [208.201.224.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ACA1C196768 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:18:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 14921 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2003 18:18:28 -0000 Received: from prop.sonic.net (208.201.224.193) by b.smtp-out.sonic.net with SMTP; 13 Aug 2003 18:18:28 -0000 Received: from sonic.net (bolt.sonic.net [208.201.242.18]) by prop.sonic.net (8.11.6p2/8.8.5) with ESMTP id h7DIIS214370 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:18:28 -0700 X-envelope-info: Received: from satellite.vo.cnchost.com (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sonic.net (8.12.9/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h7DIIQar002376 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:18:27 -0700 Message-Id: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813105917.045bfa88@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: inet-list%vo.cnchost.com@127.0.0.1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.10 (Beta) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:08:43 -0700 To: listmanagers From: JC Dill Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200308/27 X-Sequence-Number: 1580 At 10:39 AM 8/13/2003, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: >Consider how it scales. Assume that at any given time, maybe 5% of your >list are "on vacation". Heh. This is a list for people who work at ISPs. In the 5 years I've been administrating this list we have had a problem with an autoresponder maybe once a year. For the most part, ISP folks just don't take vacation, and when they do take a vacation they usually read their email daily while on vacation. For those who take a vacation and use autoresponders, most people are very clueful about how they configure them. jc From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 12:15:57 2003 Received: from a.smtp-out.sonic.net (a.smtp-out.sonic.net [208.201.224.38]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 353241965B2 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:15:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 23925 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2003 19:15:53 -0000 Received: from turbo.sonic.net (208.201.224.26) by a.smtp-out.sonic.net with SMTP; 13 Aug 2003 19:15:53 -0000 Received: from sonic.net (bolt.sonic.net [208.201.242.18]) by turbo.sonic.net (8.11.6p2/8.8.5) with ESMTP id h7DJFr531435 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:15:53 -0700 X-envelope-info: Received: from satellite.vo.cnchost.com (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sonic.net (8.12.9/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h7DJFqat009582 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:15:53 -0700 Message-Id: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813120820.037307e8@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: inet-list%vo.cnchost.com@127.0.0.1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.10 (Beta) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:09:21 -0700 To: listmanagers From: JC Dill Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs In-Reply-To: <8CB8F4FF-CDB9-11D7-8BF6-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200308/28 X-Sequence-Number: 1581 At 11:11 AM 8/13/2003, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > Is your presence on that list so absolutely crucial that it won't > survive your vacation or something? For some lists, yes. That's why I don't automatically assume that any OoO reply to any list is always bad, you have to look at the whole picture. jc From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 12:29:03 2003 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B63021966C2 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7DJSffR027160 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:28:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:28:36 -0700 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv1.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7DJSisH028677; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:28:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:28:59 -0700 Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , listmanagers To: JC Dill From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813120820.037307e8@127.0.0.1> Message-Id: <636F5FE4-CDC4-11D7-AC7B-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Archive-Number: 200308/29 X-Sequence-Number: 1582 On Wednesday, August 13, 2003, at 12:09 PM, JC Dill wrote: > At 11:11 AM 8/13/2003, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > >> Is your presence on that list so absolutely crucial that it won't >> survive your vacation or something? > > For some lists, yes. That's why I don't automatically assume that any > OoO reply to any list is always bad, you have to look at the whole > picture. > actually, I'd argue that under most circumstances, THOSE lists need an explicit "I'm going to be gone from x to x" message, since if it's that important, the users probably won't be happy finding out you're gone AFTER you leave and WHEN they need you. I still think a mailbot's the wrong way to inform folks of that -- they need a pro-active warning, not a "oh, by the way, forgot to tell you..." From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 13:05:33 2003 Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEB281967F0 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:05:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailspool2.panix.com (mailspool2.panix.com [166.84.1.79]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5088248761 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:05:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from panix.com (cpe-66-87-152-33.il.sprintbbd.net [66.87.152.33]) by mailspool2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B691F36DE0 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:05:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F3A9A00.2010603@panix.com> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:05:20 -0500 From: "David W. Tamkin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: listmanagers Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs References: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> <3F3A6723.2080600@panix.com> <20030813165026.GN15928@iridium.mv.net> <3F3A7681.7010300@panix.com> <20030813181021.GA24240@iridium.mv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200308/30 X-Sequence-Number: 1583 Mark explained, > Just pointing out that the subscriber who makes use of a tool is not > necessarily the one who should be thought badly of (i.e. rather than > the tool's author). It's not necessarily the author either. It could be the short-sighted admin who installed it, assuming that all mail to company addresses is personally directed to all addressees and that every message to an employee on vacation must get a vacation response every time, misconfigured the autoresponding software accordingly even though the author's defaults were sensible, and then got some gullible executive to order all employees to activate it when they are out of the office. Then not only do the employees have no options; they don't know that the software has maleficent shortcomings. That's why I said that JC or any other list administrator should go gently on a first-time offender. The autoresponding subscriber may have had no choice. If it recurs during another absence, then either the subscriber didn't or couldn't do anything about it. In the case of "didn't," ban the jerk; in the case of "couldn't," ban the domain and notify all subscribers at addresses in it that they're welcome to rejoin from different accounts. In my list administering days I ran into both situations. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 13:30:48 2003 Received: from kanga.nu (kanga.nu [157.22.12.214]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65204196510 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Delivery-date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:30:47 -0700 Received: from pcp03381044pcs.groton01.ct.comcast.net ([68.54.123.49]:60686 helo=yabbie) by kanga.nu with asmtp (Exim 4.20 #1 (Debian)) id 19n2Gc-00084Q-Uf; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:30:47 -0700 Received: from yabbie ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by yabbie with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19n2Gb-0001BV-00; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:30:45 -0400 To: "David W. Tamkin" Cc: listmanagers Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs In-Reply-To: Message from "David W. Tamkin" of "Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:05:20 CDT." <3F3A9A00.2010603@panix.com> References: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> <3F3A6723.2080600@panix.com> <20030813165026.GN15928@iridium.mv.net> <3F3A7681.7010300@panix.com> <20030813181021.GA24240@iridium.mv.net> <3F3A9A00.2010603@panix.com> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:30:45 -0400 Message-ID: <4556.1060806645@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200308/31 X-Sequence-Number: 1584 On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:05:20 -0500 David W Tamkin wrote: > It's not necessarily the author either. It could be the short-sighted > admin who installed it, assuming that all mail to company addresses is > personally directed to all addressees and that every message to an > employee on vacation must get a vacation response every time, > misconfigured the autoresponding software accordingly even though the > author's defaults were sensible, and then got some gullible executive > to order all employees to activate it when they are out of the office. Right. That's why I escalate to unsubscribing and finally banning the domain in the case of companies. They members will either successfully exert clue-training on the admins, or as a group they are a source of more potential trouble than they are worth. > Then not only do the employees have no options; they don't know that > the software has maleficent shortcomings. Right, that's why you start with a warning. > That's why I said that JC or any other list administrator should go > gently on a first-time offender. The autoresponding subscriber may > have had no choice. If it recurs during another absence, then either > the subscriber didn't or couldn't do anything about it. In the case > of "didn't," ban the jerk; in the case of "couldn't," ban the domain > and notify all subscribers at addresses in it that they're welcome to > rejoin from different accounts. Precisely. > In my list administering days I ran into both situations. Also. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 15:24:02 2003 Received: from c001.snv.cp.net (h005.c001.snv.cp.net [209.228.32.119]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 957771962F6 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:23:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (cpmta 28880 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2003 15:23:51 -0700 Received: from 24.96.48.1 (HELO NewHP.rixlists.com) by smtp.rixlists.net (209.228.32.119) with SMTP; 13 Aug 2003 15:23:51 -0700 X-Sent: 13 Aug 2003 22:23:51 GMT Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030813174412.0308dd20@mail.rixlists.net> X-Sender: admin@rixlists.net@mail.rixlists.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:50:51 -0400 To: listmanagers From: The Rick of RixLists Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813105917.045bfa88@127.0.0.1> References: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Archive-Number: 200308/32 X-Sequence-Number: 1585 Is it possible that the header information might be inviting the "on Vacation" message? I spoke with one systems administrator who said that my messages were being received with PRECEDENCE=NORMAL, and the sysadmin uses that to gauge who gets an auto-responder. If messages arrive with PRECEDENCE=LIST or PRECEDENCE=BULK then their system is set to NOT auto-respond. I have since configured my list as PRECEDENCE=LIST and that made that particular systems administer happy. OTOH, my software seems to filter those automated messages, so it's not really been an issue for me. -- Rick At 11:08 AM 8/13/03 -0700, JC Dil wrote: >At 10:39 AM 8/13/2003, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: >>Consider how it scales. Assume that at any given time, maybe 5% of your >>list are "on vacation". > >Heh. This is a list for people who work at ISPs. In the 5 years I've been >administrating this list we have had a problem with an autoresponder >maybe once a year. For the most part, ISP folks just don't take vacation, > [Portion deleted for brevity] >_______________________[ End ]_______________________ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 15:30:01 2003 Received: from mail.rev.net (server02.rev.net [206.67.68.98]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E16FC196774 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:29:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from admin3 (natpool2.rev.net [63.148.93.2] (may be forged)) by mail.rev.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h7DMTxDk006567 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:29:59 -0400 From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: listmanagers Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:29:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs Reply-To: bernie@fantasyfarm.com Message-ID: <3F3A83A6.17825.290CF2E@localhost> References: <3F3A3DAF.3149.17F8505@localhost> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02a) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body X-Archived: msg.1060813799.ITAlNC@server02.rev.net X-Archive-Number: 200308/33 X-Sequence-Number: 1586 I didn't see this go by on the list, but it was intended to, so I'll reply from my private copy.... On 13 Aug 2003 at 13:56, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Now, on a more practical note, how would people on this list recommend > configuring an autoresponder so that it ignores list traffic entirely, > short of having to configure each list individually? What about the simple "if it is not addressed specifically to me [either in to: or cc:] don't autorespond to it". I can't recall the last time I was on a list that munged the 'to' header to be to-the-person instead of to-the-list. /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 15:45:39 2003 Received: from turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net (turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.126]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 298F0196241 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 66-215-205-105.riv-eres.charterpipeline.net ([66.215.205.105] helo=lehel.goldmark.private) by turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19n4Mz-0001C2-00; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:45:29 -0700 Received: from betty.goldmark.private ([192.168.1.51]) by lehel.goldmark.private with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 19n4Mz-0006hD-00; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:45:29 -0700 Received: from jeffrey (helo=localhost) by betty.goldmark.private with local-esmtp (Exim 4.10) id HJKXVT-000871-00; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:45:29 -0700 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:45:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-X-Sender: jeffrey@betty.goldmark.private Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: The Rick of RixLists Cc: listmanagers Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030813174412.0308dd20@mail.rixlists.net> Message-ID: References: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.2.20030813174412.0308dd20@mail.rixlists.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200308/34 X-Sequence-Number: 1587 On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, The Rick of RixLists wrote: > OTOH, my software seems to filter those automated messages, so it's not > really been an issue for me. How does your system filter automated messages that are sent from an individual "on vacation" list member to a list member who posted? -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice Hate spam? Boycott MCI! http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/anti-spam/mci/ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 16:05:37 2003 Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33873196782 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailspool3.panix.com (mailspool3.panix.com [166.84.1.78]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8095448761 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 19:05:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from panix.com (cpe-66-87-152-33.il.sprintbbd.net [66.87.152.33]) by mailspool3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B98EA6A0 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 19:05:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F3AC435.2060801@panix.com> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:05:25 -0500 From: "David W. Tamkin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: listmanagers Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs References: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.2.20030813174412.0308dd20@mail.rixlists.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200308/35 X-Sequence-Number: 1588 Rick wrote, > I spoke with one systems administrator who said that my messages were > being received with PRECEDENCE=NORMAL, and the sysadmin uses that to > gauge who gets an auto-responder. So despite all the other indicators, such as having List- headers, coming from an envelope sender address that includes the string "owner" or "request" or "bounce" or "errors" or "admin," and most significantly the absence of the user's address from the To: line, the autoresponder was still allowed to yak away, and the administrator's excuse was that [s]he has decided unilaterally that only one criterion counts? I sent my stuff out with Precedence: list, so if that had happened on any of my lists I would never have known. But if I found out I'd have certainly given that admin the URL to Jeff's rant. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 16:22:15 2003 Received: from b.smtp-out.sonic.net (b.smtp-out.sonic.net [208.201.224.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 42CCE1968B8 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:22:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 8273 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2003 23:22:13 -0000 Received: from sub.sonic.net (208.201.224.8) by b.smtp-out.sonic.net with SMTP; 13 Aug 2003 23:22:13 -0000 Received: from sonic.net (bolt.sonic.net [208.201.242.18]) by sub.sonic.net (8.11.6p2/8.8.5) with ESMTP id h7DNMDD18136 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:22:13 -0700 X-envelope-info: Received: from satellite.vo.cnchost.com (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sonic.net (8.12.9/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h7DNMBar008343 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:22:12 -0700 Message-Id: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813160813.04793dc8@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: inet-list%vo.cnchost.com@127.0.0.1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.10 (Beta) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:10:10 -0700 To: listmanagers From: JC Dill Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030813174412.0308dd20@mail.rixlists.net> References: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813105917.045bfa88@127.0.0.1> <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200308/36 X-Sequence-Number: 1589 At 02:50 PM 8/13/2003, The Rick of RixLists wrote: >Is it possible that the header information might be inviting the "on >Vacation" message? > >I spoke with one systems administrator who said that my messages were >being received with PRECEDENCE=NORMAL, and the sysadmin uses that to >gauge who gets an auto-responder. > >If messages arrive with PRECEDENCE=LIST The list uses the Precedence: list header, as well as several List- headers. There is no reason for a properly configured vacation program to treat the list email as "normal" email. jc >At 11:08 AM 8/13/03 -0700, JC Dil wrote: > >At 10:39 AM 8/13/2003, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > >>Consider how it scales. Assume that at any given time, maybe 5% of your > >>list are "on vacation". > > > >Heh. This is a list for people who work at ISPs. In the 5 years I've been > >administrating this list we have had a problem with an autoresponder > >maybe once a year. For the most part, ISP folks just don't take vacation, > > [Portion deleted for brevity] > >_______________________[ End ]_______________________ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 16:59:22 2003 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com (xuxa.iecc.com [208.31.42.42]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E2CA2196795 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:59:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 25687 invoked by uid 100); 13 Aug 2003 23:59:13 -0000 Date: 13 Aug 2003 23:59:13 -0000 Message-ID: <20030813235913.25686.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs Newsgroups: iecc.lists.list-managers In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030813174412.0308dd20@mail.rixlists.net> References: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Cc: X-Archive-Number: 200308/37 X-Sequence-Number: 1590 > I spoke with one systems administrator who said that my messages > were being received with PRECEDENCE=NORMAL, and the sysadmin uses > that to gauge who gets an auto-responder. I'm glad that sysadmin doesn't get to mess with any of the computers around here. The rule of thumb that Bernie and I have mentioned, only respond to mail that has your address on the To: or Cc: line, has been well known for literally 20 years. This particular wheel really doesn't need reinventing, particularly in view of how badly most people do so. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 17:41:05 2003 Received: from mv.mv.com (iridium.mv.net [199.125.85.17]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5386E1962B7 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 17095 invoked by uid 101); 13 Aug 2003 20:41:01 -0400 From: "Mark E. Mallett" Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:41:01 -0400 To: "John R. Levine" Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs Message-ID: <20030814004101.GB12289@iridium.mv.net> References: <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030813235913.25686.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Archive-Number: 200308/38 X-Sequence-Number: 1591 On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:59:13PM -0000, John R. Levine wrote: > > > I spoke with one systems administrator who said that my messages > > were being received with PRECEDENCE=NORMAL, and the sysadmin uses > > that to gauge who gets an auto-responder. > > I'm glad that sysadmin doesn't get to mess with any of the computers > around here. > > The rule of thumb that Bernie and I have mentioned, only respond to > mail that has your address on the To: or Cc: line, has been well known > for literally 20 years. This particular wheel really doesn't need > reinventing, particularly in view of how badly most people do so. 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 (e.g. like this one). As we've seen there are people who argue FOR leaving the individual addresses in the reply header just as vehemently as those who argue against it. Testing for "precedence: {list,bulk}" has been around for ages too-- along with testing for various addresses like "*-request" and somewhat newer tests against various list signatures. But yeah, holding the inverted notion that "precedence:normal" somehow makes it OK is a bit jerklike. mm From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 18:16:24 2003 Received: from tom.iecc.com (tom.iecc.com [208.31.42.38]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 090DF196835 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:16:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 24767 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2003 01:16:14 -0000 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.39); 14 Aug 2003 01:15:52 -0000 Date: 13 Aug 2003 21:16:14 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Mark E. Mallett" Cc: "list-managers@greatcircle.com" Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs In-Reply-To: <20030814004101.GB12289@iridium.mv.net> References: <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> Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200308/39 X-Sequence-Number: 1592 > 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. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 18:50:30 2003 Received: from penguin.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [216.240.39.3]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E076196891 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:50:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kanga.nu (kanga.nu [157.22.12.214]) by penguin.postmodern.com (8.12.8/mcb-20021115-1) with ESMTP id h7E17jPw026240 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:07:45 -0700 Delivery-date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:07:30 -0700 Received: from pcp03381044pcs.groton01.ct.comcast.net ([68.54.123.49]:63183 helo=yabbie) by kanga.nu with asmtp (Exim 4.20 #1 (Debian)) id 19n6aP-00068u-PO; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:07:29 -0700 Received: from yabbie ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by yabbie with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19n6aP-0002eD-00; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:07:29 -0400 To: bernie@fantasyfarm.com Cc: listmanagers Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs In-Reply-To: Message from "Bernie Cosell" of "Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:29:58 EDT." <3F3A83A6.17825.290CF2E@localhost> References: <3F3A3DAF.3149.17F8505@localhost> <3F3A83A6.17825.290CF2E@localhost> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:07:29 -0400 Message-ID: <10180.1060823249@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200308/40 X-Sequence-Number: 1593 On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:29:58 -0400 Bernie Cosell wrote: > What about the simple "if it is not addressed specifically to me > [either in to: or cc:] don't autorespond to it". I can't recall the > last time I was on a list that munged the 'to' header to be > to-the-person instead of to-the-list. Mailman can do this as a non-default list configuration option. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Aug 13 20:52:12 2003 Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9438F19618E for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:52:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 66-215-205-105.riv-eres.charterpipeline.net ([66.215.205.105] helo=lehel.goldmark.private) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19n99i-0002EM-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:52:06 -0700 Received: from betty.goldmark.private ([192.168.1.51]) by lehel.goldmark.private with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 19n99i-0006lq-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:52:06 -0700 Received: from jeffrey (helo=localhost) by betty.goldmark.private with local-esmtp (Exim 4.10) id HJLC2U-00088H-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:52:06 -0700 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:52:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-X-Sender: jeffrey@betty.goldmark.private Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: listmanagers Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs In-Reply-To: <3F3AC435.2060801@panix.com> Message-ID: References: <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> <6.0.0.10.0.20030813075308.046d67a0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.2.20030813174412.0308dd20@mail.rixlists.net> <3F3AC435.2060801@panix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200308/41 X-Sequence-Number: 1594 On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, David W. Tamkin wrote: > Rick wrote, > > > I spoke with one systems administrator who said that my messages were > > being received with PRECEDENCE=NORMAL, and the sysadmin uses that to > > gauge who gets an auto-responder. I've heard that before, too. It was one of the few postmaster responses I got from pointing people to my rant. Basically, the short answer is that that is the capability that is built into MS-Exchange. They needed to defend their software choice. > I sent my stuff out with Precedence: list, so if that had happened on > any of my lists I would never have known. But if I found out I'd have > certainly given that admin the URL to Jeff's rant. That is why you aren't seeing this much on the lists you manage. MS-Exchange does test for "Precedence: list". So far, nothing in this discussion has made me think to weaken or soften my rant. Indeed, if I ever actually get around to updating content, I will more heavily emphasize the importance of checking for recipient address in recipient headers. And I will raise the option of limiting that match just to "To". -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice Hate spam? Boycott MCI! http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/anti-spam/mci/ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Aug 14 10:02:47 2003 Received: from mx1.eskimo.com (mx1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.48]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81E3196A4A for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:02:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eskimo.com (berg@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA05694 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:02:37 -0700 From: Berg Oswell Received: (from berg@localhost) by eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA29595 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:02:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:02:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200308141702.KAA29595@eskimo.com> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs X-Archive-Number: 200308/42 X-Sequence-Number: 1595 Is it any of your business, as list owner, what people send off-list? Even if it's in response to list traffic? Who appointed you the censor of all that someone else sends? If someone misconfigures a vacation autoresponder to spam your list, then by all means, ban the loser. But what gives you the idea that you have any right to ban someone from a list for something that was not sent to the list? How would you feel if someone banned YOU because they dislike your spam filter? Oh, I'm not saying you can't, but if you act arbitrarily and unfairly, you'll kill your list...who wants to be on a list with an unpredictable, arrogant list-owner? From what the original poster has said, the guy running the autoresponder hasn't done anything wrong. If anything, he's being polite, and letting people who send him mail know that he's on vacation and can't answer right away. Given the number of rude jerks on the internet, do you really want to punish someone for being polite and thoughtful? From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Aug 14 10:12:37 2003 Received: from mx1.eskimo.com (mx1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.48]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9A21196A3F for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eskimo.com (berg@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA09650 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:12:27 -0700 From: Berg Oswell Received: (from berg@localhost) by eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA29935 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:12:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:12:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200308141712.KAA29935@eskimo.com> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs X-Archive-Number: 200308/43 X-Sequence-Number: 1596 Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > Consider how it scales. Assume that at any given time, maybe 5% of your > list are "on vacation". If they all used broken autoresponders, then a > single post to a list of 1000 would generate 50 autoresponses to the > sender. Subsequent posts from the same user would generate fewer, but > still your policy does not scale well unless only a small minority of > users use broken autoresponders. That assumes the auto-responder is broken...from what the original poster has said, this one is not broken, since it has sent just one response to each person that sent it mail. Letting people know you can't answer their email right away is a polite, thoughtful thing to do...providing your autoresponder isn't configured by an idiot. Why punish someone for doing the right thing? Sure, getting 50 emails from one list post saying they're out of town might be annoying...but if the autoresponder is configured properly, you'll get ONLY 50. So what's so bad about 50 emails? Or 500? Or half a million? The point is that the guy running the autoresponder decided to do the polite, proper thing and not leave everybody hanging. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Aug 14 10:17:18 2003 Received: from mx1.eskimo.com (mx1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.48]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92849196A53 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:17:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eskimo.com (berg@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA12177 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:17:13 -0700 From: Berg Oswell Received: (from berg@localhost) by eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA00251 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:17:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:17:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200308141717.KAA00251@eskimo.com> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs X-Archive-Number: 200308/44 X-Sequence-Number: 1597 Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > Not if everyone who was "out of office" did it. Is your email system so fragile that it dies if it recieves 50 emails? Are you so technically inept that you can't filter out vacation autoresponders in your filters? Are you really, truly, complaining about people who decide to be polite to others? Does your email reader lack a delete button? Personally, given the choice between technically inept but polite people, and technically savvy jerks...I prefer the inept. If they're ignorant, they can be taught...if they're jerks, you have to resort to killfiles. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Aug 14 10:27:52 2003 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CBE5196B2D for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:27:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7EHRSfR000376 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:27:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:27:49 -0700 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv2.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7EHReWI021869; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:27:46 -0700 Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Berg Oswell From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <200308141712.KAA29935@eskimo.com> Message-Id: <9EFC2B76-CE7C-11D7-9D95-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Archive-Number: 200308/45 X-Sequence-Number: 1598 > That assumes the auto-responder is broken...from what the original > poster has said, this one is not broken, since it has sent just one > response to each person that sent it mail. > > Letting people know you can't answer their email right away is a > polite, thoughtful thing to do...providing your autoresponder isn't > configured by an idiot. Why punish someone for doing the right thing? it's not the right thing. I didn't send you an e-mail. I sent a mailing list an e-mail. Why do I, as a user of that mail list care that you're not reading it right now? That's a key issue some folks don't seem to be really understanding here. That you got an e-mail from me, doesn't mean I sent you an e-mail. I only care to see a vacation bot message if I send you an email. if I'm mailing something that ends up mailing you, I shouldn't see a mailbot. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Aug 14 10:29:42 2003 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AD36196A41 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:29:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7EHTJfR001175 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:29:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:29:40 -0700 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv2.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7EHTVWI022651; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:29:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:29:37 -0700 Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Berg Oswell From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <200308141702.KAA29595@eskimo.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Archive-Number: 200308/46 X-Sequence-Number: 1599 On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 10:02 AM, Berg Oswell wrote: > > Is it any of your business, as list owner, what people send > off-list? Even if it's in response to list traffic? Who appointed you > the censor of all that someone else sends? Yes. Your service is facilitating the communication. If two people get into a fight through your list, carry it off into private email and it turns abusive, you still have responsibility, because you still have a liability issue. How much liability depends on the situation and who does what, but don't for a second think the court won't see you as at least partially liable as the owner of the source of the abuse. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Aug 14 10:36:55 2003 Received: from zrtps0kn.nortelnetworks.com (zrtps0kn.nortelnetworks.com [47.140.192.55]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BF5196A79 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:36:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zrtpd0jn.us.nortel.com (zrtpd0jn.us.nortel.com [47.140.202.35]) by zrtps0kn.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h7EHakM24711 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:36:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zrtpd0nd.us.nortel.com ([47.140.202.41]) by zrtpd0jn.us.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id QY0FVTVR; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:36:46 -0400 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (sholton-1.us.nortel.com [47.142.213.59]) by zrtpd0nd.us.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id QYJJ7T1T; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:36:46 -0400 Message-ID: <3F3BC8AE.5020309@americasm01.nt.com> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:36:46 -0400 X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Steven Holton" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030314 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [list-managers] The daily digest for list-managers. V12 #191 References: <20030814170258.84A47196AF0@mycroft.greatcircle.com> In-Reply-To: <20030814170258.84A47196AF0@mycroft.greatcircle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200308/47 X-Sequence-Number: 1600 Berg Oswell wrote: > Is it any of your business, as list owner, what people send > off-list? Even if it's in response to list traffic? Who > appointed you the censor of all that someone else sends? Lot's of very interesting opinions here, across the spectrum and all have merit. The end-to-end principle[1] would seem to indicate that mail sent to your list should pass through unhindered, and if the recipient chooses to reply to the sender, that's between the recipient and the sender. Of course, if you (as the list manager) are acting as a moderator, editor, or other active role (I guess so, if you're asking here before taking action) then not only should you be allowed to censor content to further the aims of the list, your subscribers probably expect you to do so. Would it be possible (and appropriate) to switch out-of-office subscribers to "digest" mode? That should prevent _anyone_ from receiving an out-of-office reply (except perhaps you, or the list if reply-to is set such). Plus, you haven't censored or uns+bscr+bed anyone. It still leaves you with the problem of finding-out who is auto-responding, but once you know , this may give you a least-impact way of eliminating the problem. [1] Not that there's much end-to-end left of the Internet today... -- Steve Holton From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Aug 14 10:38:33 2003 Received: from consera1.corpnet.consera.com (dsl081-190-082.sea1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.190.82]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA63196B6B for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:38:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from roger ([192.168.10.58]) by consera1.corpnet.consera.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:38:31 -0700 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: "'Chuq Von Rospach'" , "'Berg Oswell'" Cc: Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:38:31 -0700 Message-ID: <7CEFA9CA4D5BE74586551915EC9C9C3347C0CC@consera1.corpnet.consera.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <9EFC2B76-CE7C-11D7-9D95-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Aug 2003 17:38:31.0758 (UTC) FILETIME=[E1122EE0:01C3628A] X-Archive-Number: 200308/48 X-Sequence-Number: 1601 > I didn't send you an e-mail. I sent a mailing list an e-mail. > Why do I, > as a user of that mail list care that you're not reading it right now? Maybe you don't. I, as a user of the mail list, do. And my "I" has as much of a vote as your "I." > That's a key issue some folks don't seem to be really understanding > here. We understand. We disagree. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Aug 14 10:55:33 2003 Received: from www.lofcom.com (unknown [216.105.35.108]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B19A196522 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:55:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.123.10] (lof@washdc3-ar10-4-62-171-088.washdc3.dsl-verizon.net [4.62.171.88]) by www.lofcom.com (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22363; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:55:22 -0400 X-Envelope-From: charlie@lofcom.com X-Sender: lof@oldradio.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200308141712.KAA29935@eskimo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:55:35 -0400 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Charlie Summers Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs X-Archive-Number: 200308/49 X-Sequence-Number: 1602 At 1:12 PM -0400 8/14/03, Berg Oswell is rumored to have typed: > Letting people know you can't answer their email right away is a > polite, thoughtful thing to do In my opinion, telling someone who _needs_ to know is polite; telling everyone in the world who doesn't really care is about as IMpolite as it gets. For example, if I go on vacation, I let the clients I directly service and those I work with know well ahead of time I will be away. YOU, very likely, don't give a rat's tale whether or not I'm on vacation (actually, I am this week, not that anyone asked). If you post to the list-managers list, you should NOT receive something from me you do not care to receive...that isn't "polite," it's invasive. (I really like, and may steal, Chuq's newspaper analogy.) IMHO, these autoresponders are by their very nature worse-than-useless, and on the lists I actively manage one autorespond provokes an immediate unsubscribe. This is neither, "unpredictable" nor "arrogant" - it is a rule of the lists. (Those hosted on the server operated by others, of course, have their own rules; I don't dictate this to any of the other list-moms.) I don't mess with long involved procedures; one autorespond, I run the script that bounces the offender and sends the explaination message, part of which tells them to contact their MIS departments (the majority of them, even on my hobby lists, come from brain-damaged corporate systems). You are welcomed to send out all the vacation mesages you wish, since I have not the right to tell you what you may and may not mail. From a user perspective, if I receive one from you simply because I posted to a mailing list, I am welcomed to bounce any future mail from you (I'll even go so far as to drop your listmail into /dev/null), since I DO have the right to determine who's mail I will and will not RECEIVE. And from a list-mom perspective, if you do it on any list I actively manage, you will receive a polite note telling you you have been unsubscribed, and suggesting that you are welcomed to subscribe as soon as you fix your autoresponder never to bother me or any of my subscribers again, since I DO have the right to determine who is subscribed to my lists. If you _really_ want to be polite, do NOT send out a vacation message to anyone who doesn't absolutely require one. And that, I'm afraid, you can NOT automate, since it requires human thought and discression. Charlie Summers From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Aug 14 10:59:02 2003 Received: from mail.rev.net (server02.rev.net [206.67.68.98]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 527191969FE for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:59:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from admin3 (natpool2.rev.net [63.148.93.2] (may be forged)) by mail.rev.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h7EHwx42007663 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:58:59 -0400 From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:58:56 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs Reply-To: bernie@fantasyfarm.com Message-ID: <3F3B95A0.1577.6BF07FE@localhost> In-reply-to: <200308141702.KAA29595@eskimo.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02a) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.3.1(snapshot 20020108) (server02.rev.net) X-Archived: msg.1060883939.gOdbBV@server02.rev.net X-Archive-Number: 200308/50 X-Sequence-Number: 1603 On 14 Aug 2003 at 10:02, Berg Oswell wrote: > Is it any of your business, as list owner, what people send > off-list? Even if it's in response to list traffic? Who appointed you > the censor of all that someone else sends? Indeed, IMO it is my business! If I get a slew of complaints from people on my list that someone is harassing them or otherwise hassling them based on their presence on my mailing list, I *WILL* ban [or at least warn] the offender. Makes no difference to me if it is spamming the folk or vacation-bombing them or posting annoying things or anything else. If you're to be allowed on a list I run, you have to "Play nice". It isn't a slam-dunk, of course -- one complaint clearly won't get someone banned and you have to make allowances for differences in 'style', but if my list gets 100posts a day and all 100 complain about getting the vacation [or anything else] from a particular person, they're off *my* list.. Obviously, YMMV. > Oh, I'm not saying you can't, but if you act arbitrarily and > unfairly, you'll kill your list...who wants to be on a list with an > unpredictable, arrogant list-owner? What's "unfair" -- if you misbehave and for whatever reason piss off/irritate enough of the other listmembers, how is dropping you off the list acting arbitrarily? > From what the original poster has said, the guy running the > autoresponder hasn't done anything wrong. You need to be careful about judgmental words like "wrong" here. I think there is a consensus [at the very least it is my opinion] that sending a vacation message to someone who sent a message to a mailing list is "wrong behavior" -- polite or not, it is still "wrong" in my book... > . If anything, he's being polite, > and letting people who send him mail know that he's on vacation and can't > answer right away. Who cares? I don't know who that person was, I don't care that he either did or did not get a copy of the message -- if I cared, I'd have sent him a copy personally/directly [and in that case, a 'vacation' is just right]. If you post to list-managers, do you really want 200 "I'm on vacation" messages from random folk you don't know and have never heard of? > ... Given the number of rude jerks on the internet, do you > really want to punish someone for being polite and thoughtful? Polite, yes --- but thoughtful, no. We've been through all that. /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Aug 14 11:48:14 2003 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3264196A43 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7EIhZfR009047 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:43:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:43:29 -0700 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv3.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7EIhZeq024882; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:43:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:43:52 -0700 Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Charlie Summers From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <40080744-CE87-11D7-9D95-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Archive-Number: 200308/51 X-Sequence-Number: 1604 On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 10:55 AM, Charlie Summers wrote: > If you _really_ want to be polite, > do NOT send out a vacation message to anyone who doesn't absolutely > require > one. And that, I'm afraid, you can NOT automate, since it requires > human > thought and discression. > And this is exactly why I stopped using a vacation bot years ago. I tell the people who need to know before I leave. I also don't believe in making it clear to the entire universe that my house and home are open to visitors (ahem) because I'm not there (even though we have people visiting and watching and sitting, depending on the trip, my sitters don't need that excitement, either). From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Aug 14 12:07:28 2003 Received: from goose.mail.pas.earthlink.net (goose.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.18]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F3C8196227 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:07:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 66-215-205-105.riv-eres.charterpipeline.net ([66.215.205.105] helo=lehel.goldmark.private) by goose.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19nNRS-0002yw-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:07:22 -0700 Received: from betty.goldmark.private ([192.168.1.51]) by lehel.goldmark.private with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 19nNRS-00074T-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:07:22 -0700 Received: from jeffrey (helo=localhost) by betty.goldmark.private with local-esmtp (Exim 4.10) id HJMIGA-0008DD-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:07:22 -0700 Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:07:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-X-Sender: jeffrey@betty.goldmark.private Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: List Managers Mailing list Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs In-Reply-To: <200308141712.KAA29935@eskimo.com> Message-ID: References: <200308141712.KAA29935@eskimo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200308/52 X-Sequence-Number: 1605 On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Berg Oswell wrote: > Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > > Consider how it scales. [...] > Sure, getting 50 emails from one list post saying they're out of > town might be annoying...but if the autoresponder is configured properly, > you'll get ONLY 50. So what's so bad about 50 emails? Or 500? Or half a > million? The point is that the guy running the autoresponder decided to > do the polite, proper thing and not leave everybody hanging. You must be using the words "polite" and "proper" in a ways that are unfamiliar to me. May I have your permission to quote your message on or from my rant on this matter? -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice Hate spam? Boycott MCI! http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/anti-spam/mci/ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Aug 14 13:24:06 2003 Received: from pickering.cc.nd.edu (pickering.cc.nd.edu [129.74.250.225]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E3D51969D6 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:24:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nd.edu (humphrey.cc.nd.edu [129.74.33.19]) (authenticated bits=0) by pickering.cc.nd.edu (Switch-3.1.0/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id h7EKO2NM027283 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:24:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3F3BEFDC.8040906@nd.edu> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:23:56 -0500 From: Paul Russell Organization: University of Notre Dame User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030723 Thunderbird/0.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs References: <200308141702.KAA29595@eskimo.com> In-Reply-To: <200308141702.KAA29595@eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ND-MTA-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:24:04 -0500 (EST) X-ND-Virus-Scan: engine v4.2.40; dat v4285 X-Archive-Number: 200308/53 X-Sequence-Number: 1606 > Is it any of your business, as list owner, what people send > off-list? Even if it's in response to list traffic? Who appointed you > the censor of all that someone else sends? I am one of several co-owners of a self-moderated list with 1250 subscribers. We own the list and we set the rules for continued participation, so I guess you could say that we appointed ourselves. We do not force anyone to join the list, we do not force anyone to remain on the list, and we do not charge anyone for the privilege of belonging to the list. If they do not like the way we run the list, they can leave and start their own list. Perhaps this sounds arrogant, but the fact is, we are providing a free service on our own time, and we believe we have both the right and the obligation to determine how that service is used. Most of our subscribers apparently share our belief that it is wholly inappropriate to send an OOO in response to a list posting, because more than half of the complaints sent to the list owners are about OOOs. -- Paul Russell From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Aug 14 13:32:29 2003 Received: from igtc.igtc.com (igtc.igtc.com [66.166.73.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9386195FAE for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:32:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from igtc.igtc.com (IDENT:clvBb77tmvVKGRoP8KcsDSOGOqcTWtel@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by igtc.igtc.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7EKWK90024031; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:32:20 -0700 Received: (from pmm@localhost) by igtc.igtc.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7EKWJ9m024030; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:32:19 -0700 Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:32:19 -0700 From: "Paul M. Moriarty" To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: Berg Oswell , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs Message-ID: <20030814203219.GF21886@igtc.igtc.com> References: <200308141702.KAA29595@eskimo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-Archive-Number: 200308/54 X-Sequence-Number: 1607 Chuq Von Rospach writes: > [...] > > Yes. Your service is facilitating the communication. If two people get > into a fight through your list, carry it off into private email and it > turns abusive, you still have responsibility, because you still have a > liability issue. How much liability depends on the situation and who > does what, but don't for a second think the court won't see you as at > least partially liable as the owner of the source of the abuse. Can you cite the case law using mailing lists or a similar form of electronic distribution where the distributor was held liable? From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Aug 14 13:34:12 2003 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90FC51965C6 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7EKXofR002219 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:33:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:33:41 -0700 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv1.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7EKXnsH005399; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:33:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:34:01 -0700 Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@greatcircle.com, Berg Oswell To: "Paul M. Moriarty" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <20030814203219.GF21886@igtc.igtc.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Archive-Number: 200308/55 X-Sequence-Number: 1608 On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 01:32 PM, Paul M. Moriarty wrote: > > > Can you cite the case law using mailing lists or a similar form of > electronic distribution where the distributor was held liable? > > yeah, actually, but I'm not going to take the time to go look it up. sorry, just no time. Can you cite case law where they were found to not be liable? From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Aug 14 13:38:49 2003 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC89719697F for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:38:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7EKcRfR006727 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:38:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:38:41 -0700 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv2.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7EKcXWI000734; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:38:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:38:40 -0700 Subject: Re: list policies about vacation programs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: Berg Oswell , list-managers@greatcircle.com, "Paul M. Moriarty" To: Chuq Von Rospac