Alright, I'll bite.
What are the "NANOG-approved" MTA/MUAs for this list that sort by
conversation thread, run on Windows, send in wrapped plain text, have
NANOG-approved OOO messages, and otherwise don't cause a flamestorm on
the list?
Top posting, Pete Templin wrote:
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
...Alright, I'll bite.
What are the "NANOG-approved" MTA/MUAs for this list that sort by
conversation thread, run on Windows, send in wrapped plain text, have
NANOG-approved OOO messages, and otherwise don't cause a flamestorm on
the list?From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 11:02 PM
To: Mark Prior
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Out of office/vacation messages> Why do so many supposedly clueful people have their vacation message
> system respond to mailing list email?Because it's *impossible* to get one of the most popular MUAs to
understand
that mail with an SMTP MAIL FROM 'owner-*@*' shouldn't be replied to.So it's just a special case of "why do clueful people use software from
that
vendor"?. And since it's the holidays, let's just leave it at that.
Well, let's see:
- sort by conversation thread,
Are there any that don't?
- run on Windows,
Oops, I see your problem. No self-respecting network operator runs any
M$W boxen as an MTA, so Templin is an imposter/troll.
Some foolish individuals run M$W MUA. I don't such things myself, but
both Netscape and Eudora work fine for me on MacOS, so I'd expect them
to behave on M$W.
- send in wrapped plain text,
Hmmm, I usually just wrap my own. But both Netscape and Eudora have
that capability for the operationally challenged.
- have NANOG-approved OOO messages,
Folks running reasonable MTA/MUA don't have this problem, so why don't
you check the message headers to see what clueful folks are using,
rather than trolling the list? You can see all the message headers,
can't you?
- run on Windows,
Oops, I see your problem. No self-respecting network operator runs any
M$W boxen as an MTA, so Templin is an imposter/troll.
This isnt true, the majority run Windows (at least thats what I see in various
meetings and from the user-agent headers)
I use OSX but I still have a windows laptop and virtual PC as unfortunately the
world forces me to require the use of Windows to interact with their documents
and applications...
Some foolish individuals run M$W MUA. I don't such things myself, but
both Netscape and Eudora work fine for me on MacOS, so I'd expect them
to behave on M$W.
See above, I have Outlook on my Windows boxes in order to receive the odd bits
of mail requiring me to open their attachments on Windows.
- have NANOG-approved OOO messages,
Folks running reasonable MTA/MUA don't have this problem, so why don't
you check the message headers to see what clueful folks are using,
rather than trolling the list? You can see all the message headers,
can't you?
I dont think this is 'nanog approved' its basic netiquette, the complaints are
that you shouldnt reply to emails not sent to you personally eg list mail as we
dont care that your not receiving messages today! Actually Nanog isnt too bad
considering how many people are on it ooo messages are quite rare, compared to
various other much smaller lists (100s of people on them) which I'm on and
regularly generate dozens of ooo's at a time..
Steve
>
> What are the "NANOG-approved" MTA/MUAs for this list that sort by
> conversation thread, run on Windows, send in wrapped plain text, have
> NANOG-approved OOO messages, and otherwise don't cause a flamestorm on
> the list?
Mulberry.
I'm not arguing with your conclusion, but your reasoning is a little broken. Only a small proportion of the nanog list membership attend meetings, and those that do don't necessarily provide a representative distribution (of any kind).
Similarly, the user-agent headers you see are from people on nanog-post; I am told the nanog list is much bigger.
Joe
it does bear noting that there's a difference between an MUA (UA == user agent) and an MTA (TA == transfer agent). rereading the discussion w/that in mind might put a different spin on it for you. 
Sometimes you have no choice but to run a Windows mail client - it's called
your company forcing you to a standard mailer. It's not something I have
liked doing in the past, but having your management heavily disaprove of
using something outside of standard is usually not a good thing.
Thanks-
Rachel
Wave the "security issue" flag at them on this one. There's a number of good
security reasons to not use software that blabs in response to mailing list mail:
1) If this is a reply to a message from a mailing list that you usually "lurk"
on, your subscription to the list has just been revealed (probably to every
person who is posting - possibly to the entire list if your responder replied
to the list).
2) The fact you are "Out of your office" could reveal information to a hacker.
2a) The hacker now knows that you aren't watching your PC very carefully, and
thus it's possibly a better target for a hacking attempt.
2b) If the hacker has gotten a message "George Smith is at a client site until
Aug 30", he can try calling your company and saying "This is George.. I'm at
the client's site, and I can't get to the corporate net. Can you reset my
password so I can get the documents I need to close this deal?". This is an
amazingly effective "social engineering" attack.
2c) The software most responsible for these errant messages is also well-known
for multiple security issues - and quite often even puts its exact version in
the X-Mailer header. This allows an attacker to send you a malicious e-mail
message (specially selected for your software version), for you to read when
you get back (and are probably buried under many messages and not paying as
much attention to the contents as you should).
If that doesn't work, point the PHB at this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3290251.stm
Only 2 out of the top 10 viruses/worms for last year did *NOT* target Outlook.
Then ask the PHB if they have any legal criterion of "due care" that would put
them at risk of being negligent for continuing to run their business in a known
dangerous manner.
The hacker now knows that you aren't watching your PC very carefully, and
thus it's possibly a better target for a hacking attempt.
Does an out of office message indicate I'm not watching my PC?
That's a little unclear to me. Wouldn't these messages come
from an Exchange server and not my PC necessarily, at least in
the case of Microsoft products? My PC could just as easily be
shutdown for the holidays, no?
2ndly, off the top of my head, it's unclear to me that it's an easy matter
to map someone's e-mail address to a specific machine on their network. I
guess perhaps the machine might be named for that individual perhaps.
Maybe someone has worked on that one a bit more???
This allows an attacker to send you a malicious e-mail
message (specially selected for your software version), for you to read
when you get back (and are probably buried under many messages and not
paying as much attention to the contents as you should).
This type of negligence doesn't seem to be limited to those with out of
office replies set. I've seen people repeatedly do that even after being
specifically warned not to as well. 
Dave Olverson
>
>>> - run on Windows,
>>> Oops, I see your problem. No self-respecting network operator runs any
>>> M$W boxen as an MTA, so Templin is an imposter/troll.
>>
>> This isnt true, the majority run Windows (at least thats what I see in
>> various meetings and from the user-agent headers)
>
> I'm not arguing with your conclusion, but your reasoning is a little
> broken. Only a small proportion of the nanog list membership attend
> meetings, and those that do don't necessarily provide a representative
> distribution (of any kind).
>
> Similarly, the user-agent headers you see are from people on nanog-post; I
> am told the nanog list is much bigger.
Ok true, perhaps I can get a job in journalism doing statistics But anyway,
I'm still pretty sure even with my flawed reasoning that most people are using
Windows and those that arent are you or I who dont hold a typical netops
position as there is still this insistence in most companies that all employees
use standard hardware, OS and software.
it does bear noting that there's a difference between an MUA (UA ==
user agent) and an MTA (TA == transfer agent). rereading the
discussion w/that in mind might put a different spin on it for you.
Heh, yeah I missed that! Ok well again using my broken reasoning I still reckon
based on observation that most regular companies use MS for their MTA and that
the ones using *nix are mainly ISPs. Applying this to network operators and its
a bit hazy but again based on experience very often internal mail falls under IT
and IT consists of a bunch of MSCEs running Exchange.... I can check this using
the Received headers posted to nanog and a quick grep shows a rather large
number of Microsoft boxes..
Steve (going off on a tangent)
Rachel K. Warren wrote:
- run on Windows,
Oops, I see your problem. No self-respecting network operator runs any M$W boxen as an MTA, so Templin is an imposter/troll.
Sometimes you have no choice but to run a Windows mail client - it's called your company forcing you to a standard mailer. It's not something I have
Might I suggest posting from home on your free time, using a standardized setup that doesn't annoy others?
I fail to see why a public forum on a public openly standardized network needs to tolerate the private policies of individual members that negatively impact others on the forum.
You want to participate? Play by the rules.
In short, I do not think claiming "My company makes me do it" is a valid defense.
Joe
The Horse Lives
1. MTA is unlikely to create a user-agent header (unless it's really
broken). Stephen's comments seemed to be directed at MUA where
the initial statement was about MTA. I, frankly, agree that no
self-respecting network operator runs an MTA on M$W, but, I also
feel there are a lot of network operators that demonstrate little
self respect by running M$W MTAs.
2. I do understand that there are a variety of reasons someone may feel
that they _HAVE_ to run am M$W MUA, and, for those people, I feel
sympathy and encourage them to join the resistance.
3. Vacation messages you see would also be from people on nanog-post,
since, if you aren't on nanog-post, your vacation message will
get dropped and not be posted to the list.
Owen
Rachel K. Warren wrote:
>
>>- run on Windows,
>>Oops, I see your problem. No self-respecting network operator runs any
>>M$W boxen as an MTA, so Templin is an imposter/troll.
>
>Sometimes you have no choice but to run a Windows mail client - it's
>called your company forcing you to a standard mailer. It's not something
>I have
It has been noted by other people on NANOG that I am talking about an MUA
instead of an MTA. That is correct, I got them mixed up by accident, but
my argument still stands, just substitute MTA for MUA.
Might I suggest posting from home on your free time, using a
standardized setup that doesn't annoy others?
What does this have to do with this thread?
For your information, when I read and post to NANOG I actually do it
from home, using MUTT as an MUA and sendmail as an MTA.
I fail to see why a public forum on a public openly standardized network
needs to tolerate the private policies of individual members that
negatively impact others on the forum.You want to participate? Play by the rules.
What are you talking about? You aren't making any sense.
In short, I do not think claiming "My company makes me do it" is a valid
defense.
Frankly, your supposedly argument isn't very valid either.
Thanks-
Rachel