Subject: Re: [MailServer Notification]To recipient: Message matched eManager setting and action was taken.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:42:47 -0400

On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:14:12 EDT, you said:
> **************** eManager Notification *****************
> 
> The following mail was blocked since it contains sensitive content.
> 
> Source mailbox: Peter Deutsch
> Destination mailbox(es): Robert Elz;Margaret Wasserman; [email-masked]
du; Dave Crocker; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Rule/Policy: Sexual Discrimination
> Action: Delete

I'd like to thank the clued and competent staff at endtoend.com for sending
this out:

a) doing so with an invalid 'From: administrator' tag, without the required
FQDN that's supposed to be there.

b) Without a References: or In-Reply-To: tag to make it easier to identify
what mail was being referenced.

c) The "prettification" of the 'Destination mailboxes' meant that the only
*repliable* addresses were: [email-masked], [email-masked],
and [email-masked].  Me and two mailing lists.  I'm not even the poster of
the problem message, but I'm going to be getting 3 copies.  Meanwhile, the
source mailbox *WONT* get a notification - unless endtoend.com actually
has a Peter Deutsch there, in which case he is likely going to be VERY
mystified as to why he's being accused of sexual discrimination...

d) spamming multiple recipients, including 2 mailing lists with large numbers
of subscribers, rather than the *source* address only, or the SMTP MAIL FROM:
address only. Of course, replying to the source is a problem (see (c)).

d1) Doing this to the IETF list is definitely a faux pas of major proportions.
Breaking this many Internet standards in one message misdirected to the main
mailing list for the body responsible for said standards is comparable to
showing up for tea with the Queen with toilet paper stuck to your shoe....

To paraphrase the problematic text: "Jane, you ignorant POSTMASTER!"

Argh.  Who wants the soapbox next?