At 03:57 PM 1/22/97 -0600, David W. Tamkin wrote:
>But the second person keyed her Mail Controls to reject mail from me (or at
>least from my list, but perhaps from this site) and then sent me two requests
>to subscribe to a list whose mail she won't accept. That makes no logical
Doing many combinations of things that one *can* do often makes no sense!
BTW, what happens if your site is on AOL's "global" reject list? Does their
NDN (if you get one) notify you of that? (Difficult to test!)
>An AOL customer can now block an address in its Mail Controls and then send
>honest-sounding questions or file server requests to people or daemons that
>never previously wrote to it and would not be writing to it now except to
>reply to correspondence initiated by the AOL customer. Then the responses
>are bounced as rejected. Fun-NEE. I see a lot of potential for abuse here.
Well, note that procmail users can do the same thing. It just happens
that AOL probably makes it easier to do this (although I've never used the
interface, so I can't be sure). Also, on average (or, more to the point,
in the lowest percentiles of cluefulness) AOL users probably are far more
clueless than procmail users.
>Maybe AOL Mail Controls should forbid *sending* any message whose responses
>-- assuming they will come From: the addressee with "Re: Subject" as the
>subject -- will be rejected. That wouldn't stop miscreants from quickly
>changing their settings before a reply arrives, but it would stop those who
>do it by mistake. (Methinks I should carbon Mr. O'Donnell.)
This gets complicated with multiple recipients, group replies, etc.
Perhaps even just a pop-up *warning* with "boxes" that says:
WARNING: You are configured to reject replies
from one or more recipients of this mail.
____ send anyway
____ edit Mail Controls
____ remove XXXXXX from recipient list
____ edit recipient list
(The last option should just go back to whatever the mail editor is, not
lose everything they had typed, methinks.)
Or how about having AOL add a "X-You-Wont-Be-Able-To-Reply-To-This" header
to the unlucky recipient(s)? :-)