On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Thursday, February 28, 2002 at 21:06:45 (-0500), Dave C. wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: [Exim] Proper autoresponder behavior
> >
> > Ah, but if you buddy _forwarded_ you the message, there wont be any
> > Recent-* headers.
>
> You know what I mean. Don't pick nits that don't need picking.
Actually its a not a nit.. Forwarding and "Bouncing" are two different
concepts.
> > And the purpose of doing this is if the mail was supposed to have gone
> > to you in the first place, and it was just addresses by the sender
> > incorrectly.
>
> You are in no place whatsoever to even begin to guess at why other
> people might choose to use "resent-*" to forward a message. I use it
> all the time to send messages of interest to my colleagues, for
> example.
Simply, "Forwarding" a message does not add resent headers.
>
> > Regardless of this, only messages initiated by direct human action
> > should be sent to any header address - any addresses sent 'autonomously'
> > under program control should always use the envelope address.
>
> You really do need to learn more about e-mail systems and how humans use
> them and how humans are coming to build automated tools to help them use
> e-mail systems more effectively. We are not talking about anything
> related to transport or even local delivery here. You are apparently
> completely misunderstanding the difference between an automated mail
> _user_ agent and an MTA. Autoresponders that generate DSNs from within,
> or on behalf of, MTAs are completely different critters -- entirely
> unrelated to the automated MUA functions we're discussing here.
I am fully aware of how email systems work, and I run severale large
email systems for a regional ISP.
I fully understand the difference between an MUA and an MTA.
MUA's should _not_ generate autoresponses, ever. Anything that generates
an autoreponse is an MTA.
> > Think of it this way - lets say a company wanted to automatically mail
> > out (I talking postal mail here) an acknowledgement to everone that sent
> > them a mail. Lets say this cmpany has thousands of employees. Lets say
> > all incoming letters are placed in a machine that automatically prints
> > out the acknowledgements. This machine would (and SHOULD) scan the
> > return address on the _envelope_, without opening the envelope itself.
>
> No wonder you're confused. You've got completely the wrong analogy here!
I'm not confused - I just have a different opinion than you.
1. No mail generated under program control should ever use an address
from a header as its recipient.
2. No mail generated under program control should ever use anything
other than "<>" as its envelope sender address.
> An automated mail _user_ agent is like you _opening_ and answering your
> colleague's personally addressed mail while he or she is on extended
> leave.
>
> --
> Greg A. Woods
>
> +1 416 218-0098; <gwoods@???>; <g.a.woods@???>; <woods@???>
> Planix, Inc. <woods@???>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <woods@???>
>
> --
>
> ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
>
>
--
