Our copy of ListServ "serves off" someone after 50 such auto-replies (and
sends a message to the administrator). But I've no idea why your situation
would be different, this is how it worked for us "straight out of the box".

= Marc Louis Stober
= Systems Manager
= The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
= [log in to unmask]
= http://www.uscj.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: LISTSERV give-and-take forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Roger Burns
> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 8:41 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Mail loop from autoresponder / vacation program
>
>
> I have a request for an improvement to Listserv.
>
> This morning I sent a private e-mail for which I had set my Reply-to: to
> my LISTNAME-REQUEST address.  As it happens, one of the addresses I sent
> to had an old-style responder which auto-replies to *every* message it
> receives, rather than responding only once to any unique address within
> a certain time interval.  Well, it responded to my LISTNAME-REQUEST
> address, which itself sends out an automated REQACK1 template message,
> so they got into an infinite loop.
>
> I knew to insert .QQ into the REQACK1 message to break the loop.  The
> loop was taking 3 seconds per cycle, and I was able to break the loop
> after a mere 400 exchanges had occured.  If I had not noticed the
> problem by downloading my mail again soon after the loop had started, I
> and those who also receive my LISTNAME-REQUEST mail may have received
> several dozen megabytes of looped mail.
>
> I regret that some people still have obsolete, reply-to-every-message
> autoresponders.  But upon reflection, their softeware is only half of
> the problem.
>
> I'd like to request that the auto-reply process of Listserv's
> LISTNAME-REQUEST addresses match the procedure of modern autoresponders
> that respond only once to any unique address within a certain time
> interval, specifically to prevent mail loops.
>
> Thanks for your consideration.
>
> -- Roger Burns, listowner