Subject: Annoying auto-reply messages

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:50:45 -0700 (PDT)

Is there a way we could have these things filtered at the source?

"Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:48:04 +0200
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Autoreply: Last Call: draft-hunt-avt-rtcpxnq (BT's eXtended 
Network Quality RTP Control Protocol Extended
    Reports (RTCP XR XNQ)) to Informational RFC

I am out (on vacation :) ) until next 16 July. See you then."

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:15:36 +0200

> Is there a way we could have these things filtered at the source?

Do you mean broken autoresponders or acronyms like RTCPXNQ? If the 
former, the esteemed volunteer or secretariat who runs this list can 
add a couple of lines like 'subject:.*out of office' and 'subject: 
auto[^ ]**:' to the list in 'privacy options -> spam filters -> bounce 
matching headers' list. If the latter, I suppose you have to petition 
the IESG (and please add my name on the petition).

Arnt

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:24:03 +0200

> Do you mean broken autoresponders or acronyms like RTCPXNQ?

Please let's not have a philosophical discussion, but unsubscribe  
that cipf.es address from the list because it's way out of control,  
autoreplies to posters, to the list and to top it all off bounces for  
bounces. It's a mess.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 06:40:13 -0400

Ole,

In the old days, the Secretariat and, in particular, the IETF 
Exec Dir, monitored the IETF list.  If someone sent a vacation 
message to the list, or back to the Secretariat for 
Secretariat-posted announcements (to either IETF@ or 
ietf-announce@), the assumption was that the individual involved 
lacked sufficient clues to be on an IETF list and the address 
was quietly unsubscribed.

I guess that, as things have gotten more automated and 
larger-scale, we have lost the ability to apply simple solutions.

     john

--On Tuesday, July 10, 2007 10:50 AM -0700 Ole Jacobsen 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Subject: Autoreply: Last Call: draft-hunt-avt-rtcpxnq (BT's
> eXtended  Network Quality RTP Control Protocol Extended

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:00:43 -0400

As the victim of an overzealous IT department (witness my out-of-office
messages and clueless legal disclaimers that basically say nothing),
sometimes even those with a clue haven't a chance :-(

>> I am out (on vacation :) ) until next 16 July. See you then."

Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:03:13 -0400

--On Wednesday, 11 July, 2007 10:00 -0400 Eric Burger
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> As the victim of an overzealous IT department (witness my
> out-of-office messages and clueless legal disclaimers that
> basically say nothing), sometimes even those with a clue
> haven't a chance :-(

Eric,

Two observations...

(1) I haven't seen you sending out-of-office messages to the
entire list.   I don't like getting them to the author with
individual postings (and it violates the standards too), but
that is both more tolerable and a little more understandable.  

(2) People whose organizations won't let them handle mail in a
fashion sufficiently consistent with the standards to avoid
disrupting the list always have the option of non-company
accounts.    It isn't as if the monthly charges from the obvious
services are excessive.

     john

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:10:45 -0400

Hi John,

> that is both more tolerable and a little more understandable.  

Is there a standard for this? I could not find one. I did write an April 
1st RFC wannabe banning auto-replies to mailing lists, but I did not 
know an RFC existed.

Cheers
Suresh

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:44:14 -0700 (PDT)

> 1st RFC wannabe banning auto-replies to mailing lists, but I did not

RFC 3834.

				Ned