RE: [Exim] Stopping out-of-office auto-reply mail loops

Greg A. Woods said:

>That's about as lame an excuse for using $sender_address as I've ever
>heard of.

>Clearly you have a strange and twisted and broken idea about what the
>word "dangerous" means in this context.

>Your beliefs are your own, but that's the very definition of a "Non
>sequitur" if I've ever seen one.

>That's completely lame argument too. <snip> We're talking about very
>common software here, not laws of physics!

>Are you completely disconnected from the the real world to the extent
>that you've even missed examples of this problem in this very forum?

>It's either a co-incidence, or broken software. RTFRFC again.

Greg, I am sending this to the mailing list because your mail server refuses
to accept my email.

I would like to ask that you refrain from rude and unconstructive statements
and comments against others on the list. I am sure it is your intention to
merely correct people or try to voice your opinion or view, but the way that
you come across is really quite unproductive. You cause flame wars and stir
up hatred amongst others on the list. If you feel the need to personally
attack someone because they think a certain way, or want to do something in
a fashion that contradicts your beliefs (or even rules that are set out in
RFCs or the like), please do it to that person directly, and keep it off the
list.

I, like many others I'm sure, have signed up to this list to discuss Exim
and items that relate to Exim in a constructive and benefitting way to
everyone that has subscribed to the list. There is no need or reason to
your statements which I quoted above - they could have been ommitted
completely without reducing the effect of your statements.

I wish I didn't have to come across like a list maintainer, and I cerntainly
don't have the authority to tell you what's right or wrong, but I really
don't like to have to see others get shot down and insulted when they try to
say something that doesn't agree with you - even if it is wrong on
misguided.

If you feel the need to reply to this, you could email me directly, but
please let me reply back to you directly - I'm sure you can figure out what
my mail server is and whitelist it temporarily.


>If you have paid full attention to what I said initially you'll remember
>that my rules of thumb also avoid responding to bounces, 100% guaranteed.

Better be ready to put your money where your mouth is on statements like
that. Not everyone is 100% perfect, and although I can come close to saying
so far *most* of your "guidelines" mentioned for how vacation messages
should work would be good - it's not that easy to implement *everything*
you've said so far. If it is, please show us *your* exim config lines so we
can see how you've done it.


>I wish I could say I've discussed this very issue with Jon Postel
>himself, but sadly I never did. However I am sure that he did at least
>once read my view on these matters on a public forum (I've been fighting
>against the sendmail implementation of "vacation" since the day I first
>saw it) and given that he never responded to correct me (as he did on
>other matters, sometimes even just to fill in details I wasn't aware of)
>I can only assume that he agreed with what I said.

Assuming someone agrees with you based on no feedback is far from
intelligent. I can think of tons of situations where this would obviously
not be the case.


Eli.