Date
1 - 3 of 3
locked about using email-commands
|
ro-esp
I do agree that email-commands are vital and practical, but because of the existence of (those darned) auto-responders we shouldn't make it TOO easy.
Could you make it so that people would need a slightly modified reply to confirm they want to be a member or to approve a moderated message? groetjes, Ronaldo -- http://www.esperanto.net http://www.moneyasdebt.net
|
|
|
|
Ronaldo,
Could you make it so that people would need a slightly modified replyIf the addressee's email service follows RFC3834 it would be possible to distinguish an auto response from a manual one. In particular there is an Auto-Submitted field which the responder SHOULD include the header of the response. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3834 That may need some thought in regard to Invitations, as those will be sent at times to email services with unknown conformance to standards. But for the major services I'd rather not unnecessarily make it any harder for the invitee than a simple reply. And in the case of notifications to moderators, I _really_ don't want it made any more complicated than reply and send. Here some responsibility can be put on the moderator not to choose and configure his/her email service so as to avoid auto-response problems. -- Shal
|
|
|
|
I was not aware of the Auto-Submitted header. I'll add code to drop any message received containing that field set to either 'auto-generated' or 'auto-replied'. Back in the ONElist days, I hard-coded a list of subject lines to look for from autoresponders. I don't have that now (no recent examples), but I will do something similar when it comes up. I'm also hesitant to make the email commands any more difficult. It's hard enough for people to opt-in to something they want just by replying. Thanks, Mark
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Shal Farley <shal@...> wrote: Ronaldo,
|
|
|