On 20 Aug 1993 21:18:04 GMT Richard W. Wiggins said:
>In article <[log in to unmask]>  writes:
>> On Wed, 18 Aug 1993 03:49:07 GMT "Richard W. Wiggins" said:
>> >Is there a standard  clue that an automated reply tool can  key on so as
>> >not  to  generate  replies  to   Listserv-generated  mail?  Is  there  a
>> >recommended or  proposed header  that mailing  list managers  in general
>> >ought to send for this purpose? Thanks....
>> This  is the  wrong  approach.  The auto-reply  tool  should  be the  one
>> identifying  its  messages as  an  auto-reply  that should  be  processed
>> according to the  list owner's wishes (and depending on  the type of list
>> that may  not necessarily be  "throw away"). Unfortunately they  don't do
>> anything like that at the moment.
>>   Eric
>I disagree.   If I set up a robot reply tool I would never want this tool,
>as my agent, posting to mailing lists -- only to individuals who explicitly
>send me mail.
 
This is actually humorous.  :-)
Eric seems to be suggesting that the extra service on the side of
the MLM(s) isn't such a bad idea, and Richard doesn't seem to like
the idea.
I would actually expect the roles to be reversed, ie. a user asking
for an extra service from the MLM(s), and the MLM-implementor feeling
it shouldn't work like that.  (grin)
 
>               I belong to a  lot of mailing lists, some Listserv, some others,
>and I cannot think of a single mailing list that would want me to inform all
>the members of my absence for every message someone posts to the list.
 
Well.. Who knows..
What about replying not to the whole list, but just to the *poster*?
Some people might like that extra service?
 
I can't really imagine what kind of list would want vacation
messages to be broadcast, but everything seems possible in email.
 
So the idea of a vacation item identifying itself as such a service
seems like a good one to me.  In the IBM / BITnet world a number of
auto-reply tools like GONE recognize an RSCS-MSG starting with a "*"
as stuff they should not reply to.  Extending the rough analogy to
email sounds good to me...
 
So what about:
   X-Item-Type:  type [..]
where "type" can be something like "Autoreply" (for vacation
programs), or "Listmail" (for items distributed by a mailing list),
or whatever.  And one could specify more than one type; guess what
happens otherwise when your vacation program replies to a posted
reply from my vacation program...  :->
 
Erm.. MLMs, autorepliers, and such would of course have to respect
this header, and only ADD (the fieldname and) their own type if not
already present...
Would that be asking too much from software (world-wide)?
 
 
>Forgetting the auto-reply tool question, then it's the case that there is
>no suggested header that a user (or a robot) can key on to recognize
>that a piece of mail came from a mailing list manager?
 
A pleasant side effect of my request some time ago for a consistent
header identifying list-mail as such, would be to give Richard what
he's asking for.
 
Re your question:  As you maybe already knew, the only two MLMs
which seem to be rather consistent are Revised LISTSERV and
ListProcessor, and they use effectively the same scheme; it should
be possible to use the combo of "Sender:" and "To:"...
 
 
Regards.
$$\
 
Wishful thinking dept.:
 - Doing ALL listmail related stuff via MLM type X, even if some of
   those lists are not hosted by an MLM of that type...
 - A world where everyone helps each other because they *want* to.