著者: Dave C. 日付: To: Exim Users Mailing List 題目: Re: [Exim] Should vacation messages go to reply_address or return_path?
On Sat, 12 Aug 2000, Greg A. Woods wrote:
[..]
> > And vacation messages should be sent from empty address <>, like
> > bounce messages, so no mailing loops will be created in case that
> > both the original sender and the original recipient set vacation
> > messages. In short, I think that vacation messages are like
> > bounce messages.
>
> No, they shouldn't be sent with an empty sender address. They should be
> sent as if from the mailbox they are responding for. You do not want to
> confuse them with bounces from a mail transport.
Yikes! Talk about opening up a can of looping message worms.. The
envelope sender of ANY automatically generated message should ALWAYS be
<>. Now possibly, the From: header could (and should) be the actual
mailbox address..
Personally, I think the entire concept of 'vacation' messages is stupid
anyway. Anyone important that has any idea how often you *normally*
check your mail should probably already be seperately aware of the fact
that you are 'on vacation'..
