On 9 Apr 2000, at 13:04, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> > Laurie turned my on to this today... FYI.
> >
> > <http://www.samspade.org/noaol.html>
>
> Autoresponding with the appropriate addresses (as long as they in turn are
> read) is compliant, though maybe not in the way you might prefer.
I don't think so. A far as I know, RFC 822 is still the governing RFC
for email, and it states:
> 6.3. RESERVED ADDRESS
>
> It often is necessary to send mail to a site, without know-
> ing any of its valid addresses. For example, there may be mail
> system dysfunctions, or a user may wish to find out a person's
> correct address, at that site.
>
> This standard specifies a single, reserved mailbox address
> (local-part) which is to be valid at each site. Mail sent to
> that address is to be routed to a person responsible for the
> site's mail system or to a person with responsibility for general
> site operation ...
I"m afraid that to my reading autoresponding with random other addresses
and 'rules' doesn't comply with "mail sent to that address is to be
routed..." [unless, by bouncing back to ME they're implying that *I'm*
somehow responsible for AOL's mail system.. :o)]
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
