| 1 |
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:15:30 +0200, Markus Schönhaber wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > I suppose what we really need is a standard header to be inserted by |
| 4 |
> > auto-responders. Then mailing list software can simply ignore any such |
| 5 |
> > mails. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> In theory a good solution. In practice I doubt it helps. |
| 8 |
> Whoever is "able" to configure an auto-responder in such a completely |
| 9 |
> brain-dead way, as we have seen recently, will very likely screw up |
| 10 |
> adherence to such a standard too. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Yes, I thought of that the instant I hit Send! |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> In fact, all that's needed is already there (just the other way round, |
| 15 |
> though): every list I'm subscribed to adds a "Precedence" header field |
| 16 |
> (with values of "bulk" or "list") to the messages. A sane auto-responder |
| 17 |
> will not send replies to messages containing this header field. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Good idea, I'll rewrite the procmail rules I use... not that I'm going |
| 20 |
on holiday for a while :( |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious. |
Archives