Janne Peltonen wrote: > The policy in our university has long been to discourage using auto > responders (two of the main reasons being, we don't want to end up > forwarding spam to innocent third parties, and neither want to > automatically confirm to a spammer that an address works - auto-answers > to lists and other traditional pitfalls are more easy to avoid). So we > don't support sieve vacation, either. [snip] > Now I'd like to ask the people on this list about their experiences > using the sieve vacation module. The risks of automatically > responding to spam / automatically forwarding spam / ending up in > sorceror's apprentice mode / ending up having our mail servers > blacklisted as spam relays - would they be acceptably low? The risks are dependent on how effective your antispam measures are. If you find that your institution is still delivering a high amount of spam to user inboxes, it might be wise to continue the ban on autoreponders. If you don't get much spam, sieve vacation is suitable. Providing a usable frontend for ordinary users is the real challenge. ---- Cyrus Home Page: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/ Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/twiki List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/mailing-list.html
