From: Ann Barcomb Date: 11:52 on 10 Jun 2004 Subject: Auto-reply software I hate auto-reply software with senseless defaults which is then used by people without a clue. Today I'm getting mails from the vacation program of someone I don't know. People who are sending something to a mailinglist generally don't care if someone else on the list whom they they have never spoken to is on vacation. Vacation programs should not reply to mailinglist traffic. Vacation programs should also keep some kind of log of people who have been notified about this vacation. A reply once every 24-hours or so per person is quite enough; I don't need a reply for every single email. I also got mail from a spam-blocking program that expects me to verify the letter before the address can be approved. Do your own whitelist work--the letter was sent by an automated script in response to the user making a request in a webform. Let's see...how difficult would it be for the spamer to parse this message and automate the correct response? I think I could do it in 15 minutes. On the other hand, why am I going to bother to do this so that someone can receive information he or she request? I guess it's a spam filter in the sense that it collects the spam for you, and gives it to you without the distractions of real mail. Then there was one of those mails informing me that I have sent a virus. This is some of the worst spam, because the anti-virus companies are just trying to tell you how great their software is. They know as well as I do that the email address is spoofed. Horrible applications, horrible default configurations, horrible people using them.
From: John Sinteur Date: 12:01 on 10 Jun 2004 Subject: Re: Auto-reply software On 10-jun-04, at 12:52, Ann Barcomb wrote: > Vacation programs should also keep some kind of log of people who have > been notified about this vacation. A reply once every 24-hours or so > per person is quite enough; I don't need a reply for every single > email. I've written a vacation program myself once, and I considered once quite enough. I'd hate to get the same message every day.. > > I also got mail from a spam-blocking program that expects me to verify > the letter before the address can be approved. Do your own whitelist > work--the letter was sent by an automated script in response to the > user making a request in a webform. Thank heavens for mail servers that have loop detection. I've seen servers go "you authenticate" "no, YOU authenticate" to each other until they got the kill -9... > Then there was one of those mails informing me that I have sent > a virus. This is some of the worst spam, because the anti-virus > companies are just trying to tell you how great their software is. > They know as well as I do that the email address is spoofed. I always make it a point to send a polite phrased message to the mail admins, telling them in friendly terms what I'm going to repleat in plain words here: they look like incompetent dorks and total fuckwits for having selected said piece of shit. And I urge them to complain loudly to their supplier for having made them a) look like a douchebag, b) adding to the problem of spam, and c) for advertising a bogus product without compensation. Sometimes it's really funny when a company is an IT service provider, in that case I can add some choice statements about selecting them as a supplier... I figure if the anti-virus companies may, at some point in time, get a clue this way. The best way to get rid of crap is cause pain to whoever selected it. -John
From: Ann Barcomb Date: 12:13 on 10 Jun 2004 Subject: Re: Auto-reply software On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, John Sinteur wrote: > > Vacation programs should also keep some kind of log of people who have > > been notified about this vacation. A reply once every 24-hours or so > > per person is quite enough; I don't need a reply for every single > > email. > I've written a vacation program myself once, and I considered once > quite enough. I'd hate to get the same message every day.. Once a day was tossed out as a value to satisfy the corporate sensibilities. My personal preference is for once as well. > Thank heavens for mail servers that have loop detection. I've seen > servers go "you authenticate" "no, YOU authenticate" to each other > until they got the kill -9... Two organisations who have installed this crap software deserve to get stuck in this kind of a loop, if you ask me. If they could put the doctor program in to the loop, they might even generate something worth reading. "Why do you think it is that you feel that you should authenticate?" "First tell me why you ask why do you think it is that you feel that you should authenticate?" > I always make it a point to send a polite phrased message to the mail > admins, telling them in friendly terms what I'm going to repleat in > plain words here: they look like incompetent dorks and total fuckwits [snip] Maybe I should do something like that too, but instead I just have it filed as spam. It's too much work to try to fix the world, so I stick with one serious complaint at a time. I haven't encountered something I hate more than required JavaScript recently.
From: David Cantrell Date: 12:25 on 10 Jun 2004 Subject: Re: Auto-reply software John Sinteur wrote: > I figure if the anti-virus companies > may, at some point in time, get a clue this way. Your opinion doesn't count with them because you're not a customer. Of course, the fact that you won't ever *be* a customer because they are so shit doesn't seem to enter their tiny minds. They know they spam. They know people hate it. They don't care.
From: David Champion
Date: 11:15 on 18 Jul 2004
Subject: Re: Auto-reply software
* On 2004.06.10, in <80158756-BACD-11D8-A851-000393AF450E@xxxxxxx.xxx>,
* "John Sinteur" <john@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> Thank heavens for mail servers that have loop detection. I've seen
> servers go "you authenticate" "no, YOU authenticate" to each other
> until they got the kill -9...
I truly loathe systems that require my to demonstrate my humanity before
my mail will be released from quarantine. Especially if it's in reply
to their inquiry, but really in any case. For fun, I write procmail
rules to simulate such systems, and I make an effort to create mail
loops whenever I get such crud. ("I have an extremely wide pipe. Do you,
dipstick?")
Also, when I get such challenges from someone who thinks I've sent them
this or that forged spam or virus, I assure them straightaway that I
did indeed. This is the only time I respond properly to verification
systems.
> I always make it a point to send a polite phrased message to the mail
> admins, telling them in friendly terms what I'm going to repleat in
> plain words here: they look like incompetent dorks and total fuckwits
> for having selected said piece of shit. And I urge them to complain
This is when it's useful to postmaster for 25,000 accounts, some of
whom are Very Important. I explain politely to these admins that their
AV software is really only intensifying the problem, and could they
please disable that option. Sometimes they respond, "oh, thanks, I
didn't realize". When they don't respond at all, I offer them relief by
rejecting mail from their domains to mine.
The AV companies don't care about my opinion, but sufficient public
backlash against their actual customers might reflect some concern.
From: Juerd Date: 11:27 on 18 Jul 2004 Subject: Re: Auto-reply software David Champion skribis 2004-07-18 5:15 (-0500): > The AV companies don't care about my opinion, but sufficient public > backlash against their actual customers might reflect some concern. The automated messages are the best spam they can send. They won't be interested in no longer spreading their names. Juerd
From: Phil Pennock Date: 12:05 on 10 Jun 2004 Subject: Re: Auto-reply software On 2004-06-10 at 03:52 -0700, Ann Barcomb wrote: > Today I'm getting mails from the vacation program of someone I don't > know. People who are sending something to a mailinglist generally > don't care if someone else on the list whom they they have never spoken > to is on vacation. > > Vacation programs should not reply to mailinglist traffic. > > Vacation programs should also keep some kind of log of people who have > been notified about this vacation. A reply once every 24-hours or so > per person is quite enough; I don't need a reply for every single email. Try reading the postmaster@ mailbox of a reasonably large ISP in continental Europe. This includes mail to mailer-daemon@. Writing procmail filters for auto-replies is easy. Up until you have to handle with end-users customising their text, no common header, four or five languages regularly seen and a dozen more also seen and streams of auto-replies from customers, which typically at least are only in one or two languages. And no, I can't just filter on "^Subject: Re:" with lc($to) eq 'mailer-daemon', since some people really _do_ reply to mailer-daemon@, not understanding the bounce messages, or wanting further help, and those need to be seen and dealt with. Cardinal Rule #1 for *ANY* program which sends email automatically: stick in a header saying so. I don't care if it's: X-Autogenerated: fred's big blob of code or: Sender: autoreplybot@$domain or anything else which is distinguishing, but deliberately making auto-reples as indistinguishable from a real reply as possible is beyond hateful; for an ISP postmaster, we're into hire-contract-assassin hateful.
Generated at 17:46 on 21 Sep 2006 by mariachi