25 Jul
2006
25 Jul
'06
8:13 p.m.
Hi there,
I'm trying to gather arguments to stop the Out-of-Office notification
nonsense. I know the technical arguments against OoO and other forms of
auto-responders, but I'm interested to learn how different organisations
are handling it.
If you don't want to answer publicly, please respond to me directly
(matthias(a)leisi.net - remember that the Swinog list overrides my
Reply-To: header). I will respect any requests for anonymous handling,
but I will send a summary to the list.
You may also answer in verbose form instead of using the questionnaire
below :)
My questions:
0. What kind of organisation are you answering for (eg for your ISP
staff, for your ISP customers, for your company users etc.)? About how
many users do you handle?
1. Does your organisation allow OoO to external recipients?
If you answer no to question 1, no further questions required :) If you
answer yes, please continue below:
2. Do you have any restrictions as to when/how OoO notifications are sent?
[ ] No restriction
_or_
[ ] No OoO to detected spam
[ ] OoO only to senders in the user's address book
[ ] Only to senders with matching SPF/DKIM/Sender-Id etc
[ ] Other restriction:
3. Have you had any DNSBL listings due to OoO notifications?
If yes, which DNSBLs?
4. How do you send out OoO notifications?
[ ] No special handling
[ ] Over a dedicated IP address
Thanks a lot for your contribution,
-- Matthias
26 Jul
26 Jul
8:21 a.m.
Hi Matthias et al
Out-of-Office notifications are not just "nonsense" as you state in your
mail. In a very service-oriented business, where the person-to-person
relationship is important, it makes sense for the customer to know, that
his personal contact is not available.
Please Remember: Technology should be here to help people solve their
problems, not the other way around. So instead of focusing on how to
stop OoO, why not try to find a technically "clean" way for OoO.
People need it, so let's give it to them, but in a proper way.
Now for the technical part:
- We all agree OoO should not be sent to Mailinglists. This can usually
be achieved by checking for precedence "bulk" and not replying to those.
- OoO should not reply to Spam. Difficult to do, because it's hard to
separate spam from ham automated, as we all know.
- OoO should only be sent once per mail address (default with FreeBSD
vacation, also possible with sieve scripts)
- OoO should be clearly recognizable as such by automated mail handlers.
Maybe a standard already exists? Probably not. This could be a way to a
solution (maybe a new X- Header Field, so recipients can filter out OoO
it not needed)
- OoO should be clearly recognizable by humans
And finally to your questions:
1. Yes
2. No reply to Spam, Only 1 reply per Mail-Address
3. No
4. No special handling
Cheers,
Viktor
Matthias Leisi wrote:
Hi there,
I'm trying to gather arguments to stop the Out-of-Office notification
nonsense. I know the technical arguments against OoO and other forms of
auto-responders, but I'm interested to learn how different organisations
are handling it.
If you don't want to answer publicly, please respond to me directly
(matthias(a)leisi.net - remember that the Swinog list overrides my
Reply-To: header). I will respect any requests for anonymous handling,
but I will send a summary to the list.
You may also answer in verbose form instead of using the questionnaire
below :)
My questions:
0. What kind of organisation are you answering for (eg for your ISP
staff, for your ISP customers, for your company users etc.)? About how
many users do you handle?
1. Does your organisation allow OoO to external recipients?
If you answer no to question 1, no further questions required :) If you
answer yes, please continue below:
2. Do you have any restrictions as to when/how OoO notifications are sent?
[ ] No restriction
_or_
[ ] No OoO to detected spam
[ ] OoO only to senders in the user's address book
[ ] Only to senders with matching SPF/DKIM/Sender-Id etc
[ ] Other restriction:
3. Have you had any DNSBL listings due to OoO notifications?
If yes, which DNSBLs?
4. How do you send out OoO notifications?
[ ] No special handling
[ ] Over a dedicated IP address
Thanks a lot for your contribution,
-- Matthias
_______________________________________________
swinog mailing list
swinog(a)lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
9:09 a.m.
EHLO
On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 08:21 +0200, Viktor Steinmann wrote:
- We all agree OoO should not be sent to Mailinglists.
This can usually
be achieved by checking for precedence "bulk" and not replying to those.
The easiest way to achieve that, is to use a separate mail box to handle
mailing list mails. Of course, this mail box does not have a OoO turned
on ;)
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 20:13 +0200, Matthias Leisi wrote:
1. Does your organisation allow OoO to external
recipients?
Since our external customer contact is handled by a ticketing system,
our personal email addresses are mainly for internal use. We do not have
any regulations set up for OoO and there is no need for OoO here
anyway.
Greez
- Dan
11:17 a.m.
New subject: Nokia BB-512
Hi
I'm looking for an old "Nokia BB512" xDSL-Modem (w or w/o Interface).
If someone has one laying around, please contact me offlist.
Thx,
Patrick
6159
days inactive
6160
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Daniel Kamm -
Matthias Leisi -
Patrick Hofmann -
Viktor Steinmann