|
Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 21 Aug 2001 10:22:29 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
Your message of "Mon, 20 Aug 2001 14:41:12 EDT."
<3B812188.30191.ED5644E@localhost> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
Comments: |
|
On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 14:41:12 EDT, "Wayne T. Smith" <[log in to unmask]> said:
> These two OoO problems are fairly easily addressed by LSoft by
> enabling list owners or site managers to distribute posts with the one
> or two non-standard, but defacto standard e-mail headers (e.g.,
> precedence bulk). IMHO, standing behind the argument of "no official
> standard", if that is LSoft's argument, is not in the best interests of
> LISTSERV nor its standing among MLMs.
Please note that some of the biggest OoO offenders *are* in violation of
the RFCs - for instance, the ones that reply to Listserv directly are
in violation of RFC821, which requires that you NOT reply to any mail
sent with an SMTP 'MAIL FROM:<>' (which is how Listserv sends its
administrivia mail). Also, RFC1211 talks about owner- and and -request
addresses in conjunction with mailing lists.
The right solution is to send the offending users a note requesting that
they use software that plays nice in the Internet community. For what
it's worth, I am told that the primary offender (Outlook) fixes most of
the issues in Outlook 2000 (however, I have *NOT* personally verified this).
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech
|
|
|