} > You all have noticed that Lyris has some Perl-like substitution
} > tags in it. These are used primarily for server generated
} > messages to insert recipient specific information. It allows us
} > to put a failsafe List-Unsubscribe header in, which is unique
} > to the recipient and works even when the message is forwarded
} > through multiple accounts and gateways. This would have to be
} > the #1 problem for list members and admins alike... being
} > subscribed under some address but not knowing which one.
}
} Chris, are you listening?
Yup.
I've not been following footer prepend/append sequence discussion per-se,
but, do believe that _any_ alteration of the body is a very severe
no-no. Not from the IP perspective, but simply from the perspective
of message garbling. It can potentially break digests, perhaps
even scramble Mime, and _will_ break PGP or S/Mime. Then again, PGP
breaks digests too - another peeve I gave up on years ago ;-)
Original bodies should remain inviolate - anything added/munged should
be clearly separated.
Some of this wierd stuff is being done to get around some very seriously
busted mailers out there when trying to automatically cope with bounces.
However, it's better to live with the stupid mailers than to break RFC822
compliance.
} > Things will work best if you don't use them in your posts. They
} > are uncommon enough that they should be easy to avoid. Without
} > them attached to the bottom of every message, they should be
} > easy to forget about. However, if you feel you must use them,
} > they are fully documented at
} > <http://www.lyris.com/help/LyrisMailMerge.html>
} That's just unacceptable. See the discussion above.
Reminds me of the old comment from Richard Stallman when replying to
someone about Emacs insisting on using ^Q as a command, in the face
of the _majority_ of the installed terminal base using it for flow
control: "get a better terminal".
[This was a long time ago... ;-)]
Sigh.
Lyris is a good product, as Mailshield is. A few wrinkles that's
all. Everybody dreams up "cool features", and then finds out that
they have some unforseen undesirable side-effects.
Have patience. John is quite responsive to comments.
Most of the specific issues have already been resolved.
-- Chris Lewis, CyberSheriff (CBC says I am, so it must be true!)For more information on spam, see http://spam.abuse.net/spam Fight spam, support Rep. Chris Smith's TCPA extension: http://www.cauce.org
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved