*>
*> On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Ashutosh Agarwal wrote:
*>
*> > I personally would like to receive some kind of ACK from the person whom
I
*> > am trying to send a mail....so that I am rest assured that the mail has
*> > reached him....
*>
*> Disposition-Notification-To: does that. I think it can be an invasion
*> of privacy, since a mail agent responding to it is telling you when
*> the mail is read.
*>
*> An ack that the mail is received != an ack that a mail has reached the
*> person and been read, of course.
This is a 25 year old issue. The consensus is that there is no
protocol mechanism that can EVER tell whether your message has
penetrated the brain of the recipient, except by an explicit ACK
message that the recipient initiated. Which has worked well enough for
25 years, and probably will work for another 25.
*>
*> > SO LETS STOP THIS DISCUSSION RIGHT HERE...AND USE THE IETF FOR SOMETHING
*> > BETTER
*>
Yes!
Bob Braden
PS Trimming irrelevant addresses from headers is also a 25 year old
courtesy.
*> The IETF is for discussing problems.
*> Occasionally, this has been known to lead to resolving problems.
*>
*> L.
*>
*> but not recently, eh?
*>
*>
<L(_dot_)Wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>
*>