Of course, the completely hilarious part of this whole thread is the number of 'argumentative?' messages, upset, etc. that this vacation message generated here. I don't by any means keep count, but I personally don't recall seeing enough of them pass thru to make it the "issue of the week" like it seems to have done. It is also required by some companies that people do this when they ARE gone. I rather doubt the first thing on the lusers mind is "OH! I better make sure that vacation message goes everywhere but the TCLUG list" as they are eagerly prepping for their often times well earned vacation. I expect something along the lines of tackle boxes, or whatever one might be into or have planned for their time off is the primary distraction, voluntarily or not. Since I'm of the simple sort, I wonder what would be wrong with a simple procmail ---> /dev/null rule based on "out of the office" in the message body, subject or whatever. I mean there are only so many ways to say "I'm gone." No fuss, no muss, and nobody is the wiser/pissed off, or whatever. .01 (Bad Sales Month) :) Mike Hicks wrote: > On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 14:51, Bob Tanner wrote: > >>I'm finally catching up on email, I know I got several complaints about this. >> >>What has the list/community decided about preventing it? > > > I think it would be fair for a list policy to say something like: > > Your address will be disabled if you send any vacation messages > > or > > Your address will be disabled if you send more than one vacation > message in one week > > >>Change the reply-to to the poster? > > > I hate this option. I know other people feel strongly the other way, > but there good reasons for keeping the Reply-To field as it is. Of > course, if the field ever went away, I'd quickly modify my .procmailrc > to add it back in again, so impact on me would be minimal. > > I think that dealing with inadvertent replies to the list is much less > troublesome than typing in the list address every a person wants a reply > to be public (which I do, 99.999% of the time). Also, I consider the > "Reply To All" button to be highly dangerous -- it would be used much > more frequently if the Reply-To field went away. > > For people who really prefer to have the user's original Reply-To > address, perhaps it would be possible to get the mailing list server to > keep it as X-Old-Reply-To, and then anyone with procmail skills (or some > other mail-mangling software) could set things up the way they like. > > I know this won't solve the vacation message problem, but there must be > good procmail rules for filtering out the most common vacation > messages... > _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list