Re: [Exim] Should vacation messages go to reply_address or r…

djc@??? (Dave C.) wrote on 14.08.00 in <Pine.LNX.4.21.0008141042560.5628-100000@???>:

> 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..

I'm not quite that extreme. First, it's really only important for
automatic mails triggered as result of another mail (that's where the loop
comes in), and second, <> is only one of the options. Another is using an
address that won't trigger mails, which incidentally is the way good
mailing lists handle this problem. It all depends on what you're trying
too do.

> 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'..

It's somewhat silly for most "vacation" type usages, yes. Consider, OTOH,
a message telling the sender of an address change.


MfG Kai