[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Sieve

2002-06-04 08:46:19

   At 01:58 PM 6/3/2002 -0400, Lawrence Greenfield wrote:
   >The Sieve vacation draft (now expired) explicitly mandates that the
   >vacation response messages be sent to the envelope from address
   >("Return-path").  In practice, we haven't had any complaints about
   >this behavior.

   I suspect you haven't been sampling adequately.  Most of the people I know
   are quite irritated with getting such notices, unless they have explicitly
   cited the recipient in To or CC.

I'm sorry, let me rephrase: "In practice, we haven't had any
complaints about vacation responses going to the envelope from address
and not the reply-to address."

Vacation messages to the envelope from address are easier to reason
about.  I suspect they're much less likely to cause mail loops.

   >We do receive complaints about the check for the recipient's address
   >in the To/Cc header lines.

   Complaints from whom?  The people who get vacation notices when they send
   to a mailing list?

Complaints from the people who set the vacation messages and want
their messages to go to everybody who sends them mail directly or
indirectly.  I hate vacation messages from mailing lists, and I agree
with the To/Cc test for responses.  But not everyone agrees with us.
Luckily I don't sell my software and don't have to be responsive to
customer complaints.

A mailing list would rewrite the envelope-from address.  So vacation
notices sent to envelope-from wouldn't be seen by the person posting
to the mailing list, nor would the vacation notice appear as a
'post' on the mailing list itself.

In my experience, the safest vacation notice is one that only
responds if you're on the To/CC, _and_ sends the vacation notice
to the envelope-from address -- using the envelope-from is consistent
with non-delivery notifications.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>