Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!vortex!lauren@rand-unix.ARPA From: lauren@rand-unix.ARPA Newsgroups: net.unix Subject: Problems with automatic (\"answering machine\") mail responders Message-ID: <11393@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Sun, 7-Jul-85 00:35:35 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.11393 Posted: Sun Jul 7 00:35:35 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 8-Jul-85 05:31:22 EDT Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA Lines: 27 Lately we've seen increasing use of automated mail responders to send out messages replying to incoming mail when the addressee is out of town or otherwise unable to login for awhile. While these may serve a useful purpose in many cases by informing the person sending the original message that there won't be a real immediate response, they can cause substantial problems with mailing lists. For example, in some cases, the individual addressing mail to mailing lists may be bombarded with such automated messages from all over the nets. List maintainers may be similarly inundated. As the use of these automated mechanisms spreads, the problem is bound to get worse. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage anyone designing or working with such automatic response programs to ALWAYS include facilities for an "exception list" of originating points to which automatic messages will NOT be sent. These should probably be specified at both the system-wide and individual level. The code used to detect these exceptions should be smart enough to tell the difference between a true message from an individual and one that has an individual on the From: line but was actually re-sent or otherwise forwarded via a list. Efforts put into dealing with this situation now could avoid a lot of problems down the line! --Lauren--