ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Sieve

2002-06-04 12:35:50

that's part of why sending the response to the return-path address is
better - it's more likely to reach someone who can actually make use
of the response.

But they are not always the most useful target.

Consider an original message which has a From: PHB and CC: HR, and where
the recipient is the only address listed in To:. It is reasonable for an
out-of-office notification to go to the From: and CC: parties, since this
message is specifically intended for the recipient 

No, it's not reasonable for an autoresponder to make such assumptions, 
because the autoresponder has no idea about the purpose of the message
or the roles of those whose addresses are in the From or CC lines.  
(heck, even I can't guess what PHB means)

The only thing the autoresponder knows is that the return-path address
should be set up to receive automatic replies.

It's the responsibility of the sender to ensure that MAIL FROM is set
to an address which is useful for this purpose.

(given the other people
in the distribution, it would be a damn good idea to send it to all of
them). It is not entirely logical to send the message to the secretary
mailbox in the reverse-path. The secretary doesn't care.

perhaps unfortunately (but probably not), we don't have a separate address
for every discrete purpose, so we don't have one for out-of-office responses.  
four different response addresses (five, if you count List-whatever)
seems to be more than we can handle.  

Keith

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