Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. Post: mailto:dadadev@PROTECTED Unsubscribe: http://mojo.skazat.com/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/u/[list]/ List Information: http://mojo.skazat.com/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/list/[list] Archive: http://mojo.skazat.com/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/archive/[list] ...Continue Reading

> Justin, BIG misunderstanding ! I am by no means complaining about > anything ! Oh goodness! Both ways then, I'm just a little fed up with badly written auto-responders, spam, etc, > What I am trying to say is that e-mails send to a list of people > should > have the Priority: header. This is a hint to autoresponders that they > shouldn't reply. Alright, well that's easy enough, I'll set a Priority header, and see if that doesn't help in the future :) ...Continue Reading

RFC-3834 http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=3834 A response MAY include a Precedence field [I4.RFC 2076] in order to discourage responses from some kinds of responders which predate this specification. The field-body of the Precedence field MAY consist of the text "junk", "list", "bulk", or other text deemed appropriate by the responder. Because the Precedence field is non-standard and its interpretation varies widely, the use of Precedence is not specifically recommended by thi ...Continue Reading

Justin, BIG misunderstanding ! I am by no means complaining about anything ! What I am trying to say is that e-mails send to a list of people should have the Priority: header. This is a hint to autoresponders that they shouldn't reply. My suggestion was to have Dada and at least have Priority: list. This guy here mentions Precedence: list as a hint. So this may need to be verified. http://www.goldmark.org/netrants/auto-resp/ Hope I explained myself better now. Andreas On 15 Jun 2006 08:07:25 -0000 "Dada Mai ...Continue Reading

On Jun 14, 2006, at 11:25 PM, Andreas Grau wrote: > > On 12 Jun 2006 17:37:29 -0000 > wrote: >> Thank you for writing FCCS.INFO >> >> This is an autoreply. >> >> The address you have reached is now a receive-only inbox. > > I checked the Dada-Headers from this mail, there is no Priority: Check your message - there's no Priority header in yours either :) I'm not quite sure what to do about spam, auto-replies, etc. You'd think that auto-repliers would be smart enough not ...Continue Reading

On 12 Jun 2006 17:37:29 -0000 wrote: > Thank you for writing FCCS.INFO > > This is an autoreply. > > The address you have reached is now a receive-only inbox. I checked the Dada-Headers from this mail, there is no Priority: Priority usually helps autoresponders decide whether or not to reply. They should never reply to Priority: list, Priority: bulk, or Priority: junk emails. At least I think so. This fits nicely into the original Bounces thread; bounces due to autoresponders should be ignored, and ...Continue Reading

On 31 May 2006 23:45:09 -0000, David Lauder wrote: > > One of the problems we have had with Yahoo is that the "To:" address > is listname@PROTECTED As it is not addressed to the recipient > in person Hotmail (and others) put the message into a 'junk mail' or > 'bulk mail' folder by default, where it is deleted after 5 days or so. To > avoid this, the recipient has to find the message in the junk folder and > flag it as 'not junk'. > > One advantage that I anticipate with Dada Mail ...Continue Reading

On 7 Jun 2006 20:07:29 -0000 birikorang isaac wrote: > my brother just because since i read the leter theres nothing i understand so > please if you can explain every thing to carefully mmhmm now i can answer to you so > please try to do so thank you isaac bye Ok. No problem. Where shall we begin ? "Adam and Eve", or the more advanced course "Flowers and Bees" ? Est-ce que tu te moques de nous ? Allez, tu sais mieux faire que �a ! Pour mieux apprendre l'anglais, je te conseille le suiv ...Continue Reading

On Jun 7, 2006, at 12:15 AM, Andreas Grau wrote: > These type of people will almost certainly get unsubscribed by the > elephant-memory bounce handler strategy. Which is why I am trying to > come up with something different. I'll leave my thinking cap on for > this. Please do - I'd love to hear your thoughts. > In the meantime, what about giving a bonus to the bounce score with > every message sent to the address. This way, an earlier single bounce > will be "forgiven" after some time ...Continue Reading

On 7 Jun 2006 04:17:25 -0000 "Dada Mail \(Justin Simoni\)" wrote: [snip] > It's also easier to say, "hey, this bounced!" than, "hey > this *didn't* bounce", and tally that all, since the amount of > addresses that bounced should, hopefully be less than the entire > subscription list :) :) It's mostly the soft bounces that scare me with an unforgiving bounce strategy. When I take my wife as an example, she almost always has her mailbox full. She is just not mentally rea ...Continue Reading