[Top] [All Lists]

Re: sieve: vacation extension

1997-11-24 13:05:10
Ned Freed says:
| Subject: Re: sieve: vacation extension
| > | Subject: Re: sieve: vacation extension
| > | Vacation has to respond to the MAIL FROM address or Return-Path address,
| > | not to the Reply-To/From header.
| > Is that specified somewhere?  RFC822 requires that automated replies go
| > to the address in Reply-To:/From:.
| This "requirement" of RFC822 has long been understood to be an
| _extremely_ bad idea.

Ok.  It does seem like a bad idea, especially when mailing lists are
taken into consideration.

| and I believe the revised SMTP document makes it clear that
| automatic notices should always be sent to the MAIL FROM address.

I couldn't find that, but maybe I wasn't looking hard enough.

draft-ietf-drums-kre-reply-to-00.txt adds to my confusion by stating:

   One way to avoid the seeming inconsistency of these examples is to
   note that the "use Reply-To instead of From" rule is intended to
   apply only to "automatic replies", and that for replies generated by
   humans, the address choice should generally be left to the human.
   See RFC822 section 4.4.4.

But it appears that that particular draft is just a proposed addition
to another draft..

We had a customer once who yelled at us because our autoreplier (which
was replying to MAIL FROM) wasn't following the RFC's.  So it would be
nice to have this made crystal clear in the standards.

Paul Falstad                       , Inc.
paul(_dot_)falstad(_at_)software(_dot_)com                    805-957-1790 x520         

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