Chris Hastie added,
|6) Do not respond to messages that do not explicitly contain your
| address in the To: or Cc: headers.
I've said this once already, but it's been a few days and people such as Chris
seem to be trickling in and just now catching up with the thread: if you're
carboned on a message, then you're a bystander, and your perusal is neither
urgent nor critical. In my opinion, don't send a vacation response if your
address is in Cc:, only if it's in To:.
|7) If you really must respond, do so to the SMTP reverse-path, not
| the From: or Reply-to: header address.
There I disagree strongly. An OoO is not a DSN. A message that gets a
vacation response was delivered successfully, so no DSN is called for. The
subsequent journey from the recipient's mailspool to the recipient's eyes is a
separate matter. I'd say that on the occasions when an OoO is justified in
the first place, it should be sent to the address where a reply would go,
because that's where anyone who cares about the message's being read would be
looking for mail from the recipient. Like a reply, the content of an OoO is
about the human factors, not about the computers.
In my view it is a penepessimum argument. I can think of no circumstances
where a vacation response to From: or Reply-To: is bad yet one to the
return-path is good, just cases where using the return-path would be the least
evil of three bad ideas (as in Chris's example of a mailing list) but sending
none at all is even better.
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
