Chris Hastie followed up that if I think the return-path is not the
place to send a vacation response,
> Better get your comments in on
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-moore-auto-email-response-02.txt>
>
> then. Section 4 begins
>
> |4. Where to send automatic responses (and where not to send them)
> |
> |In general, automatic responses SHOULD be sent to the Return-Path field
> |if generated after delivery.
>
> and goes on
>
> |The Reply-To field SHOULD NOT be used as the destination for automatic
> |responses from Personal or Group Responders.
OK. I'm backing down on several counts (any reference to Reply-To: here
implies "or From: if Reply-To: is not present"):
1. If Reply-To: and Return-Path: aren't the same, both addresses should
be watched for incoming mail anyway, and an automated reaction such as
an OoO will come sooner, often immediately, just like an NDN.
2. If that draft becomes official, people will expect OoO's to come to
Return-Path: and that's where they'll be looking for them.
3. Like NDNs, OoO's for redirected mail (if they should be sent at all)
should go to the redirector. After all, the writer of the content
didn't send that message to the recipient.
4. Mail where Reply-To: != Return-Path: includes mailing list
distributions, so one can even take that as an indicator against sending
an OoO at all. If one sends an OoO only if Reply-To: = Return-Path:,
then it doesn't matter which of those the bot reads the address from.
References:
|
|
