On Tuesday 25 October 2005 18:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Kurt Buff wrote:
>> Differentiating between personal accounts and company email systems,
>> how do you all classify OOO messages?
>>
>> For my personal account (on gmail.com) I consider these things spam,
>> and report them to gmail as such.
>>
>> I haven't started to do anything with them at work, but was wondering
>> if there were opinions WRT to this kind of email and how they should
>> be handled.
>
>I think considering them spam is a little strong.
>
>Consider the POV of the email server whose local recipient is OoO.
>
>Ideally I think OoO should be an SMTP extension, reported to the sending
> MTA at RCPT time.
>
>As a practical matter, I think if the received email passes an SPF
> check, there should be no objections to sending an OoO reply.

I don't do SPF's here, and have no intentions of putting up with them.  I
also don't further reply to someone who posts to a mailing list, and then
refuses the replies his question generates.  If he is so fscking
paranoid, then let his question go un-answered, I don't have a quarter to
call anyone who might care.  Its not my problem, but his.
 
And with the kmail sort to trash rule for OoO stuff, its generally not a
problem until some clueless twit fires up one of them on a busy mailing
list, like lkml, which can exceed 500 messages on some days.  500 OoO
replies going back to the mailing list will usually get the perp banned,
sometimes nicely, sometimes forever, like the twit who fired up a while
true, send mail script against one of the usb support lists yesterday.  I
didn't actually count them, but would guess at over 1000 identical
messages.  Not OoO replies, just duplicate messages. He's gone forever I
think.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.35% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

Reply via email to