On Sun, 26 May 1996, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> :1 ^From.*interramp.com /dev/nul
Stan> More likely, :0 ^From.*interramp.com /dev/null
This is a more or less reasonable response. Unfortunately for me, I
have had direct correspondence with real users at every single one of
the sites mentioned in otmar's recipe. Poor me! I can't get out that
way....
Perhaps this will work for you then. It works for me.
:0
*^From.*ix.netcom.com
*!From.*(cruiser1|cruiser2|etc)
/dev/null
Deletes most unwanted garbage from the domain - and ignores mail from
the good folks.
otmar's recipe isn't really "more sophisticated," just more verbose,
and it has real problems:
Perhaps. But there is no perfect solution.
Oh, by the way, it just occurred to me that anybody who posts an
autobounce recipe tuned to reject whole sites may be liable for
damages under "denial-of-service." Probably not, but Canker and
Slime, Attys, would take the case, so I'd watch it, bubba....
Why?
Even the elm filter does an auto-responder. As does vacation. An
auto-responder is the exact same thing as an auto-bounce. It just has
differing criteria. Criteria that the user needs to input themselves.
I have a nifty little perl script that sends out an auto-bounce type
message to twits who cross a line between "twit" and "as**ole". Twits
get deleted. The others get their entire message (including headers)
sent to them and their postmaster informing them that their mail is NOT
wanted and continued mailings are veiwed as harrassment.
I make it publicly readable/executable on Netcom. But someone has to
actually write the filter to run the script. Not me. Although a couple
of people probably have also copied my filters verbatum.
--
Q: How many right-to-lifers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two. One to screw it in and one to say that light started when the
screwing began.