From: bill.doucet at avrsb.ednet.ns dot ca (Bill Doucet)
Subject: No document available
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 02:22:56 +0100

Greetings Folks

Any ideas why I (and all my lists members on several already-running lists)
would suddenly be receiveg "No document available" in the body of all
letters coming through the lists? The subject line works fine. I am sure
that the folder paths in Autoshare are set up correctly as are the paths in
AIMS.

I really need some help. I'm doing a short "Using the Internet to Increase
your Personal Network" for the local employment agency thisafternoon and I
really need my lists up to use in ine of the hands-on ercises.

Many thanks in advance

Bill Doucet

Bill Doucet
Annapolis Valley Regional School Board
Aldershot College Campus
(902) 678-7542

http;//www.aldershot.nstn.ca
http://www.avrsb.ednet.ns.ca



Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 23:41:21 -0700
From: Michael Ross <mross at antigone dot com>
Subject: Auto-reply to wrong sender

Greetings,

I have set up an auto-reply account <auto-reply-test> with AutoShare 1.3
and it works flawlessly with the following exception.

In Eudora Light 3.1.1, if I "Redirect" a message (sent to me <mross> from
<listmgr>) to the account <auto-reply-test>, the auto-reply file is mailed
to <mross>, not the original recipient. Redirect in Eudora leaves the
headers intact so I should think the auto-reply should go to <listmgr>.

The header of the redirected message (as seen by AutoShare, since it was
included in the auto-reply) is included below. The From: header still says
<listmgr>, but <listmgr> sure didn't get it! Does AutoShare use the
X-Sender: header? If it does, should it really?

Any ideas?
Thanks!
Michael

>---
>Received: from [208.201.232.58] by antigone.sonic.net
> with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.2); Wed, 13 Aug 1997 23:30:29 -0700
>X-Sender: mross at antigone.sonic dot net
>Message-Id: <l03110702b01856748b50 at [208.201.232 dot 58]>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 23:30:27 -0700
>To: auto-reply-test at antigone dot com
>From: Antigone List Manager <listmgr at antigone dot com> (by way of Michael Ross)
>Subject: evil plane cartoon

---
Michael Ross
mross at antigone dot com



Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 10:53:11 +0100
From: James Berriman <james at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
Subject: Re: Auto-reply to wrong sender

At 07:41 14/8/97, Michael Ross wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>I have set up an auto-reply account <auto-reply-test> with AutoShare 1.3
>and it works flawlessly with the following exception.
>
>In Eudora Light 3.1.1, if I "Redirect" a message (sent to me <mross> from
><listmgr>) to the account <auto-reply-test>, the auto-reply file is mailed
>to <mross>, not the original recipient. Redirect in Eudora leaves the
>headers intact so I should think the auto-reply should go to <listmgr>.
>
>The header of the redirected message (as seen by AutoShare, since it was
>included in the auto-reply) is included below. The From: header still says
><listmgr>, but <listmgr> sure didn't get it! Does AutoShare use the
>X-Sender: header? If it does, should it really?
>
>Any ideas?

AutoShare 1.3 uses the smtp envelope sender by default. This is not always
the same as the x-Sender: header, but it is the definitive return address
used by smtp agents (the address to which undelivered mail is returned, for
example).

You can optionally set AutoShare to use the rfc From: header instead of the
envelope sender, which would solve the problem you describe.

Fire up the admin, then go into Preferences... More Miscellaneous...
[cmd-J] and check the 'RFC from (vs envelope)' checkbox.

( :-])  James



Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 14:37:11 -0500
From: Paul DuBois <paul at snake dot net>
Subject: Questions about admin-by-email

I have a few questions about the "Remote administration by e-mail" section
of the AutoShare 1.3 Addendum document.

- The document says "For safety reasons, I recommend the recipient be
autoshare@....".  Question: that may be a recommendation, but what
addresses are allowed?  Addresses of lists?  Any EIMS account for which
mail ends up in the Filed Mail folder?

- What is the password to be used?  The document seems to imply in its
examples and in the second-to-last paragraph of the remote admin section
that list-specific passwords can be used.  They don't work for me.

Here's a summary of what I've tried and what worked.

Message to autoshare, using general password: works
Message to list, using general password: works
Message to autoshare, using list password: does not work (the return
message says "invalid list server command: mypass")
Message to list, using list password: does not work (no response, but in
the EIMS log I see a line that says "moving message from postmaster at my dot host
to listname.m@my dot host")

From this it appears to me that only the general password works, but it
works whether sent to autoshare or to a list.  This doesn't seem to match
the description in the document.

- Finally, the concept of triggering remote admin commands by a line
beginning with a password, as opposed to a keyword such as "admin", seems a
bit odd.  It's not consistent with other commands, all of which begin with
a keyword like "sub" or "unsub".  Also, it artificially limits your choice
of password to words that you think no one will ever use as the first word
of messages to your list (but you really don't have any way of knowing what
people will write).  Also, as has been noted in a couple of recent messages
to this list, it's kind of dangerous to allow admin by sending messages to
the list itself (if you slightly misspell the password, you've just given
all your subscribers a big hint what your password is).


I think the remote admin capability is great, but I suggest that it would
be an improvement to have remote admin commands be triggered by lines
beginning with a keyword.  It would be more consistent with the structure
of other commands.  Perhaps it would also be better to allow admin messages
to be sent only to autoshare, to avoid the possibility of mistakenly
posting a password (or slight variation on it) to the general subscriber
populace.

Comments?  Flames?

--
Paul DuBois
paul at snake dot net
Home Page: http://www.primate.wisc.edu/people/dubois
Software:  http://www.primate.wisc.edu/software



Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 20:30:05 +0200
From: Marc Eggenberger <meggenbe at iiic.ethz dot ch>
Subject: Prob with EIMS

Hi there.

can someone help? I run EIMS as mailserver but he binhexes attached files.=
 So when a pc user attaches a zip file and sends it to another pc user he =
gets the thing binhexed ... someone knows why?


--
mfg

Marc Eggenberger    me at ieo dot ch
www.ieo.ch

Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 23:43:35 +0100
From: Bill Bedford <billbpm at mousa.demon.co dot uk>
Subject: Re:Prob with EIMS

At 7:30 pm +0100 15/08/97, Marc Eggenberger wrote:
~Hi there.
~
~can someone help? I run EIMS as mailserver but he binhexes attached files.
~So when a pc user attaches a zip file and sends it to another pc user he
~gets the thing binhexed ... someone knows why?
~

Zip files are 8 bit, so the chances of it being recieved ungarbbled are remote.


Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 11:46:03 -0700
From: Michael Ross <mross at antigone dot com>
Subject: Re: Prob with EIMS

At 20:30 +0200 8/15/97, Marc Eggenberger wrote:
>Hi there.
>
>can someone help? I run EIMS as mailserver but he binhexes attached files.
>So when a pc user attaches a zip file and sends it to another pc user he
>gets the thing binhexed ... someone knows why?

This is probably happening not in EIMS but in the mail client the PC user
is using.

Last time I checked the industry standard for transmitting 8-bit data (e.g.
a zip file) on 7-bit lines (e-mail) was MIME. The MIME extention for zip
files is "application/x-zip" or "application/octet-stream". There should be
an option for using this on your mail client.

Good luck!

Michael

---
Michael Ross
mross at antigone dot com



Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 04:44:20 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: Auto-reply to wrong sender

At 23:41 -0700 13/8/1997, Michael Ross wrote:

>In Eudora Light 3.1.1, if I "Redirect" a message (sent to me <mross> from
><listmgr>) to the account <auto-reply-test>, the auto-reply file is mailed
>to <mross>, not the original recipient. Redirect in Eudora leaves the
>headers intact so I should think the auto-reply should go to <listmgr>.

Redirect in the Eudora *client* updates the envelope sender to the
redirecter rather than the original sender, while a mail *server* forward
wouldn't do that. Although it may seem handy to use Eudora, client software
is not really the proper tool for this.

>The header of the redirected message (as seen by AutoShare, since it was
>included in the auto-reply) is included below. The From: header still says
><listmgr>, but <listmgr> sure didn't get it!

The RFC header is not the issue here. If it were, we would never be able to
rely on server forwards.

>Does AutoShare use the X-Sender: header? If it does, should it really?

No and no (pretty much informative only).

At 10:53 +0100 14/8/1997, James Berriman wrote:

>You can optionally set AutoShare to use the rfc From: header instead of
>the envelope sender, which would solve the problem you describe.

The envelope sender versus RFC From option is for list subscribers only and
does not apply to standard auto-responses.



Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 05:51:53 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: Questions about admin-by-email

At 14:37 -0500 14/8/1997, Paul DuBois wrote:

>- The document says "For safety reasons, I recommend the recipient be
>autoshare@....".  Question: that may be a recommendation, but what
>addresses are allowed?  Addresses of lists?  Any EIMS account for which
>mail ends up in the Filed Mail folder?

The latter is correct.

>- What is the password to be used?  The document seems to imply in its
>examples and in the second-to-last paragraph of the remote admin section
>that list-specific passwords can be used.  They don't work for me.
>
>Here's a summary of what I've tried and what worked.
>
>Message to autoshare, using general password: works
>Message to list, using general password: works
>Message to autoshare, using list password: does not work (the return
>message says "invalid list server command: mypass")

If you run a fresh Analysis file, which remote password is listed under the
list in question?

>Message to list, using list password: does not work (no response, but in
>the EIMS log I see a line that says "moving message from postmaster at my dot host
>to listname.m@my dot host")

Not sure what to say. How does your remote line look?

>- Finally, the concept of triggering remote admin commands by a line
>beginning with a password, as opposed to a keyword such as "admin", seems a
>bit odd.  It's not consistent with other commands, all of which begin with
>a keyword like "sub" or "unsub".

"sub" or "unsub" are commands in list server requests, whose syntax deals
with keywords differently. The administrative remote format is not intended
to be consistent with the standard subscriber issued list server command
format. The former is not a direct passworded version of the latter and
cannot be so as it introduces task types, which do not fit well within the
limited syntax scope of the latter.

>Also, it artificially limits your choice of password to words that you
>think no one will ever use as the first word of messages to your list

There is nothing artificial about making a pass*word* a word :-)

>(but you really don't have any way of knowing what people will write).

This applies no matter what!

>Perhaps it would also be better to allow admin messages to be sent only
>to autoshare, to avoid the possibility of mistakenly posting a password
>(or slight variation on it) to the general subscriber populace.

I can make the change in no time. Do all or most of you want this?



Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 06:00:51 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: No document available

At 02:22 +0100 14/8/1997, Bill Doucet wrote:

>Any ideas why I (and all my lists members on several already-running lists)
>would suddenly be receiveg "No document available" in the body of all
>letters coming through the lists? The subject line works fine. I am sure
>that the folder paths in Autoshare are set up correctly as are the paths
>in AIMS.

The missing document is most likely the file holding the subscriber list.
You may have renamed the standard List Server folder or the document itself.



Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 06:17:24 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: Admin "Window" bug?

At 14:49 -0500 13/8/1997, Paul DuBois wrote:

>In the Admin, selecting Preferences>Window always seems to bring up
>the window with Hide selected, regardless of whether Hide or Show
>is the current setting.  AutoShare 1.4b4 using Admin with embedded
>FaceSpan (created July 8).
>
>Does this happen for other people?

It happens to everyone, because AutoShare can be scripted to make the
change via the Hide Window AppleScript command, which however does not
return the status of the window. It's just me being silly at the time...



Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 20:25:34 +0100
From: james at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk (James Berriman)
Subject: Re: Questions about admin-by-email

At 1:51 pm 17/8/97, Mikael Hansen wrote:
>At 14:37 -0500 14/8/1997, Paul DuBois wrote:

>>Perhaps it would also be better to allow admin messages to be sent only
>>to autoshare, to avoid the possibility of mistakenly posting a password
>>(or slight variation on it) to the general subscriber populace.

I fail to see how this would stop someone accidentally posting a password
(or variation thereof) to a list. If I post a message to autoshare-talk
that happens to start with some variation on the list password, how does
AutoShare know I've made a mistake?

(FX: Drum roll. Loud fanfare)

Announcing Intuition 1.0, an autoshare process extender... ;-)

>I can make the change in no time. Do all or most of you want this?

No. Most of me are quite happy, thanks.

BTW, I still don't understand all the fuss about accidentally posting
passwords to lists. When it happens, it's very obvious. Changing the
compromised password is easy.

( :-])  James



Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 15:50:10 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: Questions about admin-by-email

At 20:25 +0100 17/8/1997, James Berriman wrote:

>>At 14:37 -0500 14/8/1997, Paul DuBois wrote:
>
>>>Perhaps it would also be better to allow admin messages to be sent only
>>>to autoshare, to avoid the possibility of mistakenly posting a password
>>>(or slight variation on it) to the general subscriber populace.
>
>I fail to see how this would stop someone accidentally posting a password
>(or variation thereof) to a list. If I post a message to autoshare-talk
>that happens to start with some variation on the list password, how does
>AutoShare know I've made a mistake?

The first word in lines of the body in a normal list contribution is
unlikely to be as password-like as a well designed password. The issue lies
elsewhere, as the risk is with the listmaster not doing everything right.
The following lists some such situations:

1. AutoShare will catch a proper password put in the proper place for any
message file arriving in the Filed Mail folder. But if the recipient
address is a list and the password is not the first word in lines beginning
with the first line, it won't be caught and therefore posted to the public.

2. Or if the recipient address is a list and the password is misspelled, it
won't be caught and therefore posted to the public.

3. If a passworded mechanism is added to approvals, a misspelled password
is posted if the sender address is an adequate approval.

4. Or if the wrong list password is used and the sender address is an
adequate approval.

>BTW, I still don't understand all the fuss about accidentally posting
>passwords to lists. When it happens, it's very obvious. Changing the
>compromised password is easy.

You are right of course. Avoid list addresses, and you'll never run into
big problems; the list server address is an easy one to remember anyway.

At 08:46 -0700 13/8/1997, Bill Catambay wrote:

>This is a good point, as another listserver, SmartList, just had a list
>password posted to the entire MMMG list by mistake.

:-) Yes, use the list server address!

At 08:40 -0700 13/8/1997, Bill Catambay wrote:

>> Another approach would be to check for a listmaster address in both the
>> envelope and the RFC header regardless of the envelope versus RFC From
>> setting. Strictly aimed at contribution approval, this is more, well,
>> approachable.
>
>I'll take it!   :-)

Thanks!



Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 22:45:37 -0500
From: Paul DuBois <paul at snake dot net>
Subject: Re: Questions about admin-by-email

>>BTW, I still don't understand all the fuss about accidentally posting
>>passwords to lists. When it happens, it's very obvious. Changing the
>>compromised password is easy.
>
>You are right of course. Avoid list addresses, and you'll never run into
>big problems; the list server address is an easy one to remember anyway.

Then why not just make the list server address the only one that is legal?
We then will know that and won't even think about posting admin requests
to lists.  New people especially will not think about this if the documentation
no longer suggests that as an option.

--
Paul DuBois
paul at snake dot net
Home Page: http://www.primate.wisc.edu/people/dubois
Software:  http://www.primate.wisc.edu/software



From: Juergen Thome <juergen at Creatix dot DE>
Subject: Re: AutoShare-Talk digest 16 Aug 1997
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 08:07:37 +0200 (MET DST)


Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 23:45:42 -0700
From: Michael Ross <mross at antigone dot com>
Subject: Re: Auto-reply to wrong sender

At 4:44 -0700 8/17/97, Mikael Hansen wrote:
>At 23:41 -0700 13/8/1997, Michael Ross wrote:
>
>>In Eudora Light 3.1.1, if I "Redirect" a message (sent to me <mross> from
>><listmgr>) to the account <auto-reply-test>, the auto-reply file is mailed
>>to <mross>, not the original recipient. Redirect in Eudora leaves the
>>headers intact so I should think the auto-reply should go to <listmgr>.
>
>Redirect in the Eudora *client* updates the envelope sender to the
>redirecter rather than the original sender, while a mail *server* forward
>wouldn't do that. Although it may seem handy to use Eudora, client software
>is not really the proper tool for this.

It's the _only_ tool if you are trying to redirect a bunch of mail _after_
it's been delivered... ;)

No filter I know of in any mail server is intelligent enough to direct mail
based on non-simple content.

Specifically, if mail sent to a human-being contains (among other things) a
request for info on Widget A, I would like to be able for that recipient to
redirect it to user "auto-reply-widget-a" rather than cutting & pasting
that info into their reply.

BTW, this worked in Communigate... I wonder if they use RFC headers...

Best,
Michael

---
Michael Ross
mross at antigone dot com



Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 00:29:23 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: X-List headers

[was Re: AutoShare-Talk digest 16 Aug 1997]
At 08:07 +0200 18/8/1997, Juergen Thome wrote:

>**  The AutoShare-Talk archives are at:
>**  <http://frutiger.staffs.ac.uk/autoshare/archives/AutoShare-Talk/>

I can answer this easily :-)

All kidding aside and focusing on the RFC headers: what do you all think of
the X-List headers? Do you something feel that some of your lists may not
need all of them? Have your subscribers uttered any misgivings?



Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 00:46:35 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: Auto-reply to wrong sender

At 23:45 -0700 17/8/1997, Michael Ross wrote:

>It's the _only_ tool if you are trying to redirect a bunch of mail _after_
>it's been delivered... ;)

I see :-)

>No filter I know of in any mail server is intelligent enough to direct mail
>based on non-simple content.
>
>Specifically, if mail sent to a human-being contains (among other things) a
>request for info on Widget A, I would like to be able for that recipient to
>redirect it to user "auto-reply-widget-a" rather than cutting & pasting
>that info into their reply.

You are touching on something that I have been thinking about: an automated
redirect service. Which automatically redirects copies of the original
message to an auto-response account, if for instance given e-mail addresses
appear in the body. Granted, this is kind of upside-down of your thoughts,
but I think something interesting could come out of it all.

Now that I understand your case better, perhaps a /= token is appropriate.
Let's say, you redirect a personal mail to an auto-response account, but
add a '/=rfc' line to the body first, then AutoShare would know to update
the envelope sender to the e-mail address in the RFC From before further
processing. Whadda ya say?



Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 10:30:30 +0100
From: James Berriman <james at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
Subject: Re: Questions about admin-by-email

At 04:45 18/8/97, Paul DuBois wrote:

>Then why not just make the list server address the only one that is legal?
>We then will know that and won't even think about posting admin requests
>to lists.  New people especially will not think about this if the documentation
>no longer suggests that as an option.

People will still _accidentally_ post admin requests to their list
addresses from time to time. Disabling the admin processing for list
addresses won't stop a password getting posted to the list.

I suggest the best approach is to leave the AutoShare application as it is
and just emphasise the advice in the documentation (to use the autoshare@
address).

( :-])  James



Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 10:44:23 +0100
From: James Berriman <james at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
Subject: Re: Auto-reply to wrong sender

At 08:46 18/8/97, Mikael Hansen wrote:

>Now that I understand your case better, perhaps a /= token is appropriate.
>Let's say, you redirect a personal mail to an auto-response account, but
>add a '/=rfc' line to the body first, then AutoShare would know to update
>the envelope sender to the e-mail address in the RFC From before further
>processing. Whadda ya say?

Or perhaps you could place the token in the actual auto-response document?

A one-time, fit-and-forget solution, since Michael always wants files to go
to the rfc from address.

You could, of course, combine the two ideas by allowing a token in the
forwarded message to override the token in the document.

( :-])  James



Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 11:02:59 +0100
From: James Berriman <james at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
Subject: Re: X-List headers

At 08:29 18/8/97, Mikael Hansen wrote:

>All kidding aside and focusing on the RFC headers: what do you all think of
>the X-List headers? Do you something feel that some of your lists may not
>need all of them? Have your subscribers uttered any misgivings?

Now that the rfc draft has been published, I'd like to see the X- go away.

These are no longer custom headers, but proposed standards :-)

I'd like to be able to manually define List headers on a per-list basis.
The list-header spec allows considerable flexibility in this area (multiple
url schemes in the headers, for instance).

( :-])  James



Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 07:56:18 -0400
From: wsuarez at digprod dot com (Bill Suarez)
Subject: Re: AutoShare 1.4b4

OK, I'm just back from vacation. Reading my mail and I see that 1.4b4 should be
up on the server.........but it's not.

Did I miss something??

Bill Suarez
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: AutoShare 1.4b4
From:    AutoShare-Talk at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk at Internet
Date:    8/11/97  12:47 AM

Good morning, all!

AutoShare 1.4b4 is available from

        <ftp://ftp.dnai.com/users/m/meh/AutoShare/Beta/>

First the little things:
-re-enables remote scripting for the PPC version
-applies multi-domain support to contribution alerts
-puts list in list server request log account tag
-adds the X-List-Software header to auto-responses
-tip-of-the-day, updated RFC Date to time of posting
-added clarification for when sending partial digests

There is a new process extender entitled System, which is activated
immediately before a System command in remote administration by e-mail
takes effect. A Write Log sample is included. See also the Process Extender
Notes.

The code updating the message (.m) and digest (.d) list files whenever a
list contribution takes place has been optimized considerably resulting in
a significant speed enhancement. You may read about my speed test findings
in the next AutoShare Tip Of The Day posting later today. Reflections on
memory usage and application stability will appear the following days.

You can subscribe to the AutoShare Tip Of The Day list by sending a mail to

  <mailto:autoshare at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>

with 'subscribe autoshare-tip-of-the-day <your name>' in the body.

--
Mikael Hansen <mailto:meh at dnai.com> <http://www.dnai dot com/~meh/autoshare/>



**  The AutoShare-Talk archives are at:
**  <http://frutiger.staffs.ac.uk/autoshare/archives/AutoShare-Talk/>

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 13:34:18 +0100
From: James Berriman <james at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
Subject: Re: AutoShare 1.4b4

>OK, I'm just back from vacation. Reading my mail and I see that 1.4b4 should be
>up on the server.........but it's not.
>
>Did I miss something??
>
>Bill Suarez

I just downloaded a copy. It's there!

( :-])  James



Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 09:04:37 -0400
From: wsuarez at digprod dot com (Bill Suarez)
Subject: Re[2]: AutoShare 1.4b4

Oops, I guess I need more coffee.......sorry 'bout that James!
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: AutoShare 1.4b4
From:    AutoShare-Talk at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk at Internet
Date:    8/18/97  1:34 PM

>OK, I'm just back from vacation. Reading my mail and I see that 1.4b4 should be
>up on the server.........but it's not.
>
>Did I miss something??
>
>Bill Suarez

I just downloaded a copy. It's there!

( :-])  James



**  The AutoShare-Talk archives are at:
**  <http://frutiger.staffs.ac.uk/autoshare/archives/AutoShare-Talk/>

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 11:30:03 -0700
From: Michael Ross <mross at antigone dot com>
Subject: Re: Auto-reply to wrong sender

At 0:46 -0700 8/18/97, Mikael Hansen wrote:
>You are touching on something that I have been thinking about: an automated
>redirect service. Which automatically redirects copies of the original
>message to an auto-response account, if for instance given e-mail addresses
>appear in the body. Granted, this is kind of upside-down of your thoughts,
>but I think something interesting could come out of it all.
>
>Now that I understand your case better, perhaps a /= token is appropriate.
>Let's say, you redirect a personal mail to an auto-response account, but
>add a '/=rfc' line to the body first, then AutoShare would know to update
>the envelope sender to the e-mail address in the RFC From before further
>processing. Whadda ya say?

Well, it still involves typing, as opposed to a simple mouse/menu command
in Eudora when a message is open (Eudora allows recipients to be menu
items). How about a "Use RFC From: for redirects" preference switch?

Or, if typing is inevitable, wouldn't a "send" command on the listserv side
(password protected with the admin password) make more sense? A fictitious
list "docs" would allow access to files in the docs folder, as defined in
the Folders... command:

send user at domain dot com docs Widget-A-info.txt

this would allow for batch processing, too, which would be nice....

Just a thought....

Michael

---
Michael Ross
mross at antigone dot com



Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 00:29:13 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: Auto-reply to wrong sender

At 10:44 +0100 18/8/1997, James Berriman wrote:

>Or perhaps you could place the token in the actual auto-response document?
>
>A one-time, fit-and-forget solution, since Michael always wants files to go
>to the rfc from address.

He may not want it *entirely* "always" :-(

>You could, of course, combine the two ideas by allowing a token in the
>forwarded message to override the token in the document.

But that's involves extra typing.

At 11:30 -0700 18/8/1997, Michael Ross wrote:

>How about a "Use RFC From: for redirects" preference switch?

Now, how would AutoShare know it's a redirect? ;-)

>Or, if typing is inevitable, wouldn't a "send" command on the listserv side
>(password protected with the admin password) make more sense? A fictitious
>list "docs" would allow access to files in the docs folder, as defined in
>the Folders... command:
>
>send user at domain dot com docs Widget-A-info.txt
>
>this would allow for batch processing, too, which would be nice....

Although not batch processing per se, the remote post command may be used here.

The only way for AutoShare to detect a Eudora redirect is to search the RFC
From field body for the string "(by way of " and if found use the RFC From.
How does that strike you? This solution btw requires absolutely no extra
typing in any docs or redirected mails. And no extra configuration.



Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 01:17:30 -0700
From: Michael Ross <mross at antigone dot com>
Subject: Re: Auto-reply to wrong sender

At 0:29 -0700 8/19/97, Mikael Hansen wrote:
>At 10:44 +0100 18/8/1997, James Berriman wrote:
>
>>Or perhaps you could place the token in the actual auto-response document?
>>
>>A one-time, fit-and-forget solution, since Michael always wants files to go
>>to the rfc from address.
>
>He may not want it *entirely* "always" :-(

I don't.... sorry to be so complicated!


>>You could, of course, combine the two ideas by allowing a token in the
>>forwarded message to override the token in the document.
>
>But that's involves extra typing.
>
>At 11:30 -0700 18/8/1997, Michael Ross wrote:
>
>>How about a "Use RFC From: for redirects" preference switch?
>
>Now, how would AutoShare know it's a redirect? ;-)
>
>>Or, if typing is inevitable, wouldn't a "send" command on the listserv side
>>(password protected with the admin password) make more sense? A fictitious
>>list "docs" would allow access to files in the docs folder, as defined in
>>the Folders... command:
>>
>>send user at domain dot com docs Widget-A-info.txt
>>
>>this would allow for batch processing, too, which would be nice....
>
>Although not batch processing per se, the remote post command may be used
>here.

I thought the remote post command was to post to a list? What I'm talking
about is sending a file, which already exists in the Docs folder somewhere,
to a user who may not be subscribed to any current lists. Basically I'm
looking for an admin (passive) equivalent to user at domain dot com sending
(active) a get command, but the file does not have to be associated with a
particular list.

Say the file is :Auto:Docs:auto-reply:info.txt (and :Auto:Docs: has been
defined as the Docs folder in the Admin App). I would like to be able to
say:

<password> send user at domain dot com auto-reply info.txt

and user at domain dot com, who has no idea by the way that autoshare even exists
or has a syntax, miraculously receives the auto-reply file "info.txt".

>
>The only way for AutoShare to detect a Eudora redirect is to search the RFC
>From field body for the string "(by way of " and if found use the RFC From.
>How does that strike you? This solution btw requires absolutely no extra
>typing in any docs or redirected mails. And no extra configuration.

Sounds great! (If it's not too kludgy for you...)

Thanks,
Michael

---
Michael Ross
mross at antigone dot com



Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 04:30:16 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: Auto-reply to wrong sender

At 01:17 -0700 19/8/1997, Michael Ross wrote:

>Say the file is :Auto:Docs:auto-reply:info.txt (and :Auto:Docs: has been
>defined as the Docs folder in the Admin App). I would like to be able to
>say:
>
><password> send user at domain dot com auto-reply info.txt
>
>and user at domain dot com, who has no idea by the way that autoshare even exists
>or has a syntax, miraculously receives the auto-reply file "info.txt".

Not bad at all!

>>The only way for AutoShare to detect a Eudora redirect is to search the RFC
>>From field body for the string "(by way of " and if found use the RFC From.
>>How does that strike you? This solution btw requires absolutely no extra
>>typing in any docs or redirected mails. And no extra configuration.
>
>Sounds great! (If it's not too kludgy for you...)

Nah... Steve D. probably won't change "(by way of ".



Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 10:17:32 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Poll on AutoShare configuration

As yet another dazzling gesture from the house of generosity at frutiger,
James is kindly orchestrating a poll aimed at gathering distribution data
for your primary tool of complete AutoShare configuration (the basic
configuration using the AutoShare server itself is considered secondary in
this context).

Please send your vote to poll at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk with a subject of the
word Configuration and one of the following words as the first line of the
body:

Admin: choose this one, if you most often use the AutoShare Admin
Applescript: choose this, if you primarily script your configuration
STR#: this choice is for frequent use of ResEdit with the preferences
Osmosis: :-)
Telepathy: ;-)

Remember that only your first vote counts. Subsequent retries of a first
successful vote merely informs you of the current distribution of all votes
(e-mail addresses or names are not listed).

Happy voting!



Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 12:49:02 -0700
From: Michael Ross <mross at antigone dot com>
Subject: remote send command

At 4:30 -0700 8/19/97, Mikael Hansen wrote:
>At 01:17 -0700 19/8/1997, Michael Ross wrote:
>
>>Say the file is :Auto:Docs:auto-reply:info.txt (and :Auto:Docs: has been
>>defined as the Docs folder in the Admin App). I would like to be able to
>>say:
>>
>><password> send user at domain dot com auto-reply info.txt
>>
>>and user at domain dot com, who has no idea by the way that autoshare even exists
>>or has a syntax, miraculously receives the auto-reply file "info.txt".
>
>Not bad at all!

Forgot to say that info.txt could have auto-reply tokens such as /=subject
or /=reply-to (I don't know if AutoShare checks for these in remote
mode....)


---
Michael Ross
mross at antigone dot com



Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 00:08:50 -0500
From: Paul DuBois <paul at snake dot net>
Subject: Re: Questions about admin-by-email

>At 04:45 18/8/97, Paul DuBois wrote:
>
>>Then why not just make the list server address the only one that is legal?
>>We then will know that and won't even think about posting admin requests
>>to lists.  New people especially will not think about this if the
>>documentation
>>no longer suggests that as an option.
>
>People will still _accidentally_ post admin requests to their list
>addresses from time to time. Disabling the admin processing for list
>addresses won't stop a password getting posted to the list.

Yes, I know.  I understand that.  But the current setup encourages that
mistake by allowing list addresses as legitimate recipients of admin messages.


--
Paul DuBois
paul at snake dot net
Home Page: http://www.primate.wisc.edu/people/dubois
Software:  http://www.primate.wisc.edu/software



Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 03:50:46 -0500
From: gsolares at MIT dot EDU (Guido R. Solares)
Subject: Voting more than once with the Poll account

Here is the Problem:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In playing with the special "Poll" account in autoshare, I noticed recently
that one can actually vote more than once. The Poll account is supposed to
accept only one vote per email address but you can trick it by simply
changing the return address in your email client program and voting again.
Of course, one never gets the return email message that autoshare sends
with the latest results but the vote count is indeed increased.

Here is the Solution:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Simply setup the Poll account as a "Mail-Back" account instead of an
autoreply account, by changing the path from "HD:Auto:Filed Mail" to
"HD:Auto:Mail Back". By doing this, autoshare will request confirmation
from the voter before casting the vote!!! In this way, the voter just gets
to vote ONCE.

I was looking for a feature like this for long time!!

Thanks Mikael for bringing us autoshare!


Best,


--Guido Solares
  <gsolares at mit dot edu>



P.S.
Don't forget to setup the "mail-back" and the "hold-mail" folders in
Autoshare Admin: Preferences, More Folders (Command-K) or AppleScript:

tell application "AutoShare"
  SetFolders Options {Mail Back: "folder1", Hold Mail: "folder2"}
end tell

Or preference resources STR# 203,7-8.



Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 04:21:18 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: AutoShare 1.4b5

Hello all

AutoShare 1.4b5 is available from

	<ftp://ftp.dnai.com/users/m/meh/AutoShare/Beta/>

1.4b5 adds substantial updates to the Miscellaneous and List preferences
for both AppleScript (see the AppleEvent dictionary) and the Admin (see the
More Miscellaneous and More List windows). A number of requested
preferences has been added as well.

--
Mikael Hansen <mailto:meh at dnai.com> <http://www.dnai dot com/~meh/autoshare/>



Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 04:27:13 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: Voting more than once with the Poll account

At 03:50 -0500 21/8/1997, Guido R. Solares wrote:

>I was looking for a feature like this for long time!!

>Thanks Mikael for bringing us autoshare!

And thank you for enlightning us on the poll + mail-back combo :-)



Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 09:04:49 -0400
From: wsuarez at digprod dot com (Bill Suarez)
Subject: Re: AutoShare 1.4b5

Up and running at DPI Mikael.

Will advise.

Bill Suarez
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: AutoShare 1.4b5
From:    AutoShare-Talk at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk at Internet
Date:    8/21/97  4:21 AM

Hello all

AutoShare 1.4b5 is available from

        <ftp://ftp.dnai.com/users/m/meh/AutoShare/Beta/>

1.4b5 adds substantial updates to the Miscellaneous and List preferences
for both AppleScript (see the AppleEvent dictionary) and the Admin (see the
More Miscellaneous and More List windows). A number of requested
preferences has been added as well.

--
Mikael Hansen <mailto:meh at dnai.com> <http://www.dnai dot com/~meh/autoshare/>



**  The AutoShare-Talk archives are at:
**  <http://frutiger.staffs.ac.uk/autoshare/archives/AutoShare-Talk/>

Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 09:39:54 -0400
From: wsuarez at digprod dot com (Bill Suarez)
Subject: Re[2]: AutoShare 1.4b5

I may have spoken too soon. Although 1.4b5 came up just fine and appeared to be
normal, it did NOT send out posts. Very strange as I didn't even see the file
get "processed" by AutoShare. The status screen showed the normal post-bootup,
no items processed yet screen. Yet, the file was gone from Filed Mail......

I had to drop back to 1.4b4, recent the same post and it went  out fine.

Bill Suarez
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: AutoShare 1.4b5
From:    AutoShare-Talk at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk at Internet
Date:    8/21/97  9:04 AM

Up and running at DPI Mikael.

Will advise.

Bill Suarez
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: AutoShare 1.4b5
From:    AutoShare-Talk at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk at Internet
Date:    8/21/97  4:21 AM

Hello all

AutoShare 1.4b5 is available from

        <ftp://ftp.dnai.com/users/m/meh/AutoShare/Beta/>

1.4b5 adds substantial updates to the Miscellaneous and List preferences
for both AppleScript (see the AppleEvent dictionary) and the Admin (see the
More Miscellaneous and More List windows). A number of requested
preferences has been added as well.

--
Mikael Hansen <mailto:meh at dnai.com> <http://www.dnai dot com/~meh/autoshare/>



**  The AutoShare-Talk archives are at:
**  <http://frutiger.staffs.ac.uk/autoshare/archives/AutoShare-Talk/>

**  The AutoShare-Talk archives are at:
**  <http://frutiger.staffs.ac.uk/autoshare/archives/AutoShare-Talk/>

Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 08:38:22 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re[2]: AutoShare 1.4b5

At 09:39 -0400 21/8/1997, Bill Suarez wrote:

>I may have spoken too soon. Although 1.4b5 came up just fine and appeared
>to be normal, it did NOT send out posts. Very strange as I didn't even see
>the file get "processed" by AutoShare. The status screen showed the normal
>post-bootup, no items processed yet screen. Yet, the file was gone from
>Filed Mail......
>
>I had to drop back to 1.4b4, recent the same post and it went  out fine.

If a message file arrives in the Filed Mail folder and the same file is
soon no longer there, then it has been processed.

A good way to test this is to shut down AutoShare and resend the message.
Once the file arrives in the Filed Mail folder, copy the file name to the
clipboard by Command-C, shut down EIMS and start up AutoShare. See what
happens, and when processing appears to have been completed and the file is
no longer in the Filed mail folder, perform a Finder search by Command-F
and paste the file name by Command-V into the text field with "name
contains". Let us know if the search turns up anything on the disk.



Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 15:10:18 -0400
From: wsuarez at digprod dot com (Bill Suarez)
Subject: Remote Admin

Am I the only one who is having trouble with Remote Admin (email) in 1.4b5?

Mikael, is this another preference thing I'm missing?

Bill Suarez

Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 14:28:05 -0400
From: wsuarez at digprod dot com (Bill Suarez)
Subject: Re[3]: AutoShare 1.4b5

Found the problem!

Apparently uninitialized preferences bit me in the butt.

I followed Mikael's advice and shutdown AutoShare and then sent a message to the
list. Shutdown EIMS and brought up AutoShare so it "processed" the message (I
made a copy of the file in Filed Mail first). Then I did a "Find" on the file
name and found it in: System Folder:Preferences:AutoShare:Tip of the Day:<
listname>.

I'm assuming that 1.4b5 thought that all my lists where Tip of the Day lists. I
used the Admin to "Update" (checked and un-checked the Tip of the Day field) the
new "more" screen for each list and it seems to work fine now.

Bill Suarez
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: AutoShare 1.4b5
From:    AutoShare-Talk at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk at Internet
Date:    8/21/97  9:39 AM

I may have spoken too soon. Although 1.4b5 came up just fine and appeared to be
normal, it did NOT send out posts. Very strange as I didn't even see the file
get "processed" by AutoShare. The status screen showed the normal post-bootup,
no items processed yet screen. Yet, the file was gone from Filed Mail......

I had to drop back to 1.4b4, recent the same post and it went  out fine.

Bill Suarez
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: AutoShare 1.4b5
From:    AutoShare-Talk at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk at Internet
Date:    8/21/97  9:04 AM

Up and running at DPI Mikael.

Will advise.

Bill Suarez
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: AutoShare 1.4b5
From:    AutoShare-Talk at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk at Internet
Date:    8/21/97  4:21 AM

Hello all

AutoShare 1.4b5 is available from

        <ftp://ftp.dnai.com/users/m/meh/AutoShare/Beta/>

1.4b5 adds substantial updates to the Miscellaneous and List preferences
for both AppleScript (see the AppleEvent dictionary) and the Admin (see the
More Miscellaneous and More List windows). A number of requested
preferences has been added as well.

--
Mikael Hansen <mailto:meh at dnai.com> <http://www.dnai dot com/~meh/autoshare/>



**  The AutoShare-Talk archives are at:
**  <http://frutiger.staffs.ac.uk/autoshare/archives/AutoShare-Talk/>

**  The AutoShare-Talk archives are at:
**  <http://frutiger.staffs.ac.uk/autoshare/archives/AutoShare-Talk/>

**  The AutoShare-Talk archives are at:
**  <http://frutiger.staffs.ac.uk/autoshare/archives/AutoShare-Talk/>

Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 12:37:01 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re[3]: AutoShare 1.4b5

At 14:28 -0400 21/8/1997, Bill Suarez wrote:

>Found the problem!

>I'm assuming that 1.4b5 thought that all my lists where Tip of the Day
>lists. I used the Admin to "Update" (checked and un-checked the Tip of
>the Day field) the new "more" screen for each list and it seems to work
>fine now.

I just realized that 1.4b5 does not always check for the general
preferences counterpart, when a list-specific preference is specified with
an override value. I'll look into it and get back to you, but I do advice
that you don't use 1.4b5 for the time being.

Thanks, Bill! It got rather late last night :-)



Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:10:19 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: Remote Admin

At 15:10 -0400 21/8/1997, Bill Suarez wrote:

>Am I the only one who is having trouble with Remote Admin (email) in 1.4b5?
>
>Mikael, is this another preference thing I'm missing?

Could be; I'll look into it. Do use 1.4b4 until further notice!



Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 23:01:57 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: AutoShare 1.4b6

Hello all

At 14:28 -0400 21/8/1997, Bill Suarez wrote:

>I'm assuming that 1.4b5 thought that all my lists where Tip of the Day
>lists. I used the Admin to "Update" (checked and un-checked the Tip of
>the Day field) the new "more" screen for each list and it seems to work
>fine now.

At 12:37 -0700 21/8/1997, Mikael Hansen wrote:

>I just realized that 1.4b5 does not always check for the general
>preferences counterpart, when a list-specific preference is specified with
>an override value. I'll look into it and get back to you, but I do advice
>that you don't use 1.4b5 for the time being.

Fixed. AutoShare 1.4b6 (the two server applications only, as the rest of
the 1.4b5 archive file is fine) is available from

	<ftp://ftp.dnai.com/users/m/meh/AutoShare/Beta/>

Please read the "AutoShare 1.4beta Notes" extra carefully this time :-)

Bill's note indirectly reminds me of another issue, which James once
brought up to me a while back and which I somehow didn't address at the
time: the AppleScript dictionary and thereby also the Admin do not
specifically refer to some types of override values. So when Bill checked
and unchecked the Tip Of The Day field, then not only this field, but also
all other fields of some types within the window were saved at
list-specific values, thereby wiping out the override values. The same
thing happens to individual properties when using AppleScript directly.
There is more to this than meets the eye, and I'll give it some thought.

At 15:10 -0400 21/8/1997, Bill Suarez wrote:

>Am I the only one who is having trouble with Remote Admin (email) in 1.4b5?
>
>Mikael, is this another preference thing I'm missing?

Bill and I discussed his situation offline, and some serious investigation
on his part revealed the source of the problem to be with another
application.

--
Mikael Hansen <mailto:meh at dnai.com> <http://www.dnai dot com/~meh/autoshare/>



Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 08:37:43 -0400
From: wsuarez at digprod dot com (Bill Suarez)
Subject: Remote Email Admin and IE

Hi folks,

Bill Suarez here at DPI. Y'all saw the post I sent out yesterday asking about
other problems with remote email admin under the new 1.4b5 version.

Well, it turns out that AutoShare wasn't the culprit at all but rather Internet
Explorer (at least 4.0 preview) is. I use James's Admin Form to generate an
email message, with appropriate list password, etc., from Netscape and
everything is fine but from IE 4.0 the mail message must not be "formed"
correctly as it get rejected by AutoShare.

Has anyone else seen this?

James - what can I do to help get a better understanding of this one??

Mikael - Thanks, as always!

Bill Suarez

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 15:01:00 +0100
From: James Berriman <james at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
Subject: Re: Remote Email Admin and IE

Bill Suarez wrote:

> Well, it turns out that AutoShare wasn't the culprit at all but rather Internet
> Explorer (at least 4.0 preview) is. I use James's Admin Form to generate an
> email message, with appropriate list password, etc., from Netscape and
> everything is fine but from IE 4.0 the mail message must not be "formed"
> correctly as it get rejected by AutoShare.

> James - what can I do to help get a better understanding of this one??

Shut down AutoShare, send a message and then drag it out of the filed
mail folder and have a look.

As far as I know, there's no formal standard yet for mailto: forms. IE3
and Netscape 3 use the same method, but it's quite possible IE4 has
changed.

AutoShare checks the Content-type: header.

You should see something like this:

Subject: Form posted from Mozilla
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Content-length: 13
Message-ID: <1339860855-89197 at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>

comments=test

Anyone know if the W3C or IETF has finally adopted a standard for
mailto: forms? 

Last I heard, W3C didn't consider this an HTML issue (although the use
of mailto: forms was initially proposed in the HTML rfcs!).

( :-])  James

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 15:15:56 +0100
From: James Berriman <james at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
Subject: Re: Remote Email Admin and IE

James Berriman wrote:

> comments=test

This came out OK in the archives, but with a 3D (rogue MIME encoding)
when I received it in Netscape. Odd!

( :-])  James

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:34:48 -0400
From: wsuarez at digprod dot com (Bill Suarez)
Subject: Re[2]: Remote Email Admin and IE

James,

Here is an exact sample........

Start - 

Received: from netprint.digprod.com (199.93.124.124) by jetprint.digprod.com
 with SMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.2); Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:31:42 -0400
Received: from 199.92.186.121 by netprint.digprod.com with SMTP (8.6.8.1/1.2-
eef)
        id OAA01582; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:26:40 GMT
Return-Path: <wsuarez at digprod dot com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:26:40 GMT
From: wsuarez at digprod dot com
Message-Id: <199708221426.OAA01582 at netprint.digprod dot com>
To: listserv at jetprint.digprod dot com
Subject: Form posted from Internet Explorer
X-Mailer: Mozilla/3.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.0p1; Mac_PowerPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Content-Length: 123


list=DPI-Announce&name=John+Doe&password=<omitted>&email=jdoe at acme dot com&command=
subscribe&option=digest&submit=mail+this+form

Finish - 

Bill
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Remote Email Admin and IE
From:    AutoShare-Talk at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk at Internet
Date:    8/22/97  3:01 PM

Bill Suarez wrote:

> Well, it turns out that AutoShare wasn't the culprit at all but rather
Internet
> Explorer (at least 4.0 preview) is. I use James's Admin Form to generate an
> email message, with appropriate list password, etc., from Netscape and
> everything is fine but from IE 4.0 the mail message must not be "formed"
> correctly as it get rejected by AutoShare.

> James - what can I do to help get a better understanding of this one??

Shut down AutoShare, send a message and then drag it out of the filed
mail folder and have a look.

As far as I know, there's no formal standard yet for mailto: forms. IE3
and Netscape 3 use the same method, but it's quite possible IE4 has
changed.

AutoShare checks the Content-type: header.

You should see something like this:

Subject: Form posted from Mozilla
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Content-length: 13
Message-ID: <1339860855-89197 at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>

comments=test

Anyone know if the W3C or IETF has finally adopted a standard for
mailto: forms? 

Last I heard, W3C didn't consider this an HTML issue (although the use
of mailto: forms was initially proposed in the HTML rfcs!).

( :-])  James

**  The AutoShare-Talk archives are at:
**  <http://frutiger.staffs.ac.uk/autoshare/archives/AutoShare-Talk/>

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 15:58:51 +0100
From: James Berriman <james at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk>
Subject: Re: Remote Email Admin and IE

Bill Suarez wrote:
> 
> James,
> 
> Here is an exact sample........

> Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
> Content-Length: 123
> 
> 
> list=DPI-Announce&name=John+Doe&password=<omitted>&email=jdoe at acme dot com&command=
> subscribe&option=digest&submit=mail+this+form

There's an extra line in there. Funnily enough, it doesn't show up in
the quote when I do a straight reply (had to copy and paste). I suspect
IE is adding an extra lf in there somewhere. This may be what is
confusing AutoShare, because there's nothing in the first line of the
message.

( :-])  James

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 11:19:31 -0700
From: Mikael Hansen <meh at dnai dot com>
Subject: Re: Remote Email Admin and IE

At 15:58 +0100 22/8/1997, James Berriman wrote:

>There's an extra line in there. Funnily enough, it doesn't show up in
>the quote when I do a straight reply (had to copy and paste). I suspect
>IE is adding an extra lf in there somewhere. This may be what is
>confusing AutoShare, because there's nothing in the first line of the
>message.

Yep, that's the ticket alright. I have sent Bill a test version, which
takes this into consideration.



Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 16:57:50 -0400
From: wsuarez at digprod dot com (Bill Suarez)
Subject: Re[2]: Remote Email Admin and IE

The test version handles IE 4.0 "mails" just fine. I tried two or three commands
and they all work.

I find that I'm using James's Admin form more and more now, it's very quick and
easy.

Thanks Mikael!

Bill
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Remote Email Admin and IE
From:    AutoShare-Talk at frutiger.staffs.ac dot uk at Internet
Date:    8/22/97  11:19 AM

At 15:58 +0100 22/8/1997, James Berriman wrote:

>There's an extra line in there. Funnily enough, it doesn't show up in
>the quote when I do a straight reply (had to copy and paste). I suspect
>IE is adding an extra lf in there somewhere. This may be what is
>confusing AutoShare, because there's nothing in the first line of the
>message.

Yep, that's the ticket alright. I have sent Bill a test version, which
takes this into consideration.



**  The AutoShare-Talk archives are at:
**  <http://frutiger.staffs.ac.uk/autoshare/archives/AutoShare-Talk/>

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:37:53 -0700
From: Camelot Postmaster <camelot.admin at lmco dot com>
Subject: Re: Auto-reply to wrong sender

At 1:17 AM -0700 on 8/19/97, Michael Ross wrote:

> >
> >The only way for AutoShare to detect a Eudora redirect is to search the RFC
> >From field body for the string "(by way of " and if found use the RFC From.
> >How does that strike you? This solution btw requires absolutely no extra
> >typing in any docs or redirected mails. And no extra configuration.
>
> Sounds great! (If it's not too kludgy for you...)
>

Guess that means I should stop deleting the "(by way of..." text when I
redirect then.   ;)


Bill Catambay....................... mailto:bill.m.catambay at lmco dot com
Lockheed Martin, EIS................ ph:408.742.1000

Software Developer, Electronics Manufacturing
http://nexus.lmms.lmco.com/DEMON

Webmaster, Map Maker
http://www.catambay.com/pascal-central
http://www.catambay.com/morgana