J. Daniel Smith <DanS(_at_)bristol(_dot_)com> wrote:
Stephen R. van den Berg writes on 29 July 1996 at 08:01:05
1. The -r reply generator of formail will probably never support multiple
addresses because:
a. Looking for the best address to reply to is a completely different
algorithm than looking for the best group of addresses to reply to.
Finding a *group* of addresses involves actually determining that
you even are searching for a group and not only for one address.
Then finding out the best address for each. It's already a tricky
business doing this just for one address.
b. It makes thousands of autoreply recipes vulnerable to mail-storm
attacks. Formail tries its best to control the damage even if
operated by someone who doesn't know what he is doing. If it were
to reply to multiple addresses at times, this damage control is
severely undermined.
I understand these concerns; however RFC822 specificaly allows for
multiple recipients in a Reply-To: header. Given that, it seems that
there should be a stright-forward way to deal with this in formail;
even worse is that "formail" silently ignores multiple Reply-To:
addresses.
Hmmm...
For (a), wouldn't the Reply-To: (or Resent-Reply-To:) header supersede
all other addresses and thus greatly simplify the searching?
Not entirely true. If you're giving formail the -t option, then you
are (more or less) right. Without it, formail tries to duck and avoid
sending replies to mailinglists (for instance), or in general tries
to control the damage if the sender isn't actually expecting
autoreplies back. Sometimes that means overriding the (Resent-)Reply-To:
field.
For (b),
how about only using multiple (Resent-)Reply-To: addresses if
formail's "-t" option is also specified? Or if you are really worried
Not good enough.
about mail-storms and existing recipes, a new formail option.
Well, maybe you've talked me into this.
--
Sincerely,
srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl
Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless).
"And now for something *completely* different!"