Howdy, I know this subject has been visited before but.... Has anyone come up with any heuristics that procmail can use to determine that a message to a mailing list from a poorly configured autoresponder (the message appears to come from an individual and does not include headers from daemons, proper Precendence: , etc) and prevent it from creating an infinite loop with the mailing list? I realize people who can't properly setup an autoresponder have no business using one and should be publicly humiliated at their local soccer stadium, however this is not an option available to me. Cheers, --Paul T. Cueman -- http://www.cuenet.com Info@cuenet.com -= At the speed of the Internet =-
In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.0201171335540.17733-100000@orbital.cuenet.com>, Paul Thomas <cueman@cuenet.com> writes:
Has anyone come up with any heuristics that procmail can use to determine that a message to a mailing list from a poorly configured autoresponder (the message appears to come from an individual and does not include headers from daemons, proper Precendence: , etc) and prevent it from creating an infinite loop with the mailing list?
My experience has been that SmartList already has implemented most of those heuristics: the daemon-sender hints, the Precedence header, the X-Loop header, etc. If you've been unlucky enough to hit an autoresponder that slips through all of these, you'll probably have to write some new rules for it, and the rules may not apply to any other system. It's a rotten situation.
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Tim Pierce wrote:
My experience has been that SmartList already has implemented most of those heuristics: the daemon-sender hints, the Precedence header, the X-Loop header, etc. If you've been unlucky enough to hit an autoresponder that slips through all of these, you'll probably have to write some new rules for it, and the rules may not apply to any other system. It's a rotten situation.
You are right. I've been confronted with accounting for the situation where someone might misconfigure an autoresponder to the point the autoresponse appears to have come from an actual person. So I guess that would fool just about any automaton detection scheme and perhaps qualify more as a forgery. I imagine the only sure response to that would be detecting a loop in progress which might effectively translate into setting a limit to the number of posts per day a subscriber is allowed to make. Maybe in the instance of a busy poster, when their daily limit has been met, they would be sent a note informing them of such and maybe a token they could put in their Subject field or someplace to reset their daily message counter. Just a thought.... Thanks! --Paul Cueman -- http://www.cuenet.com Info@cuenet.com -= At the speed of the Internet =-
participants (2)
-
Paul Thomas -
Tim Pierce