Re: [exim] Out of Office and collateral spam

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Michael Heydon wrote:

> Isn't that exactly the point of the OoO reply? Sure it would be nice if
> everyone understood that email isn't perfect, but in the real world if
> someone thinks I am ignoring them then they will yell and scream/email
> my boss/set fire to my cat/etc. A well configured autoreply behind a
> decent spam filter will calm these people down will doing minimal/no
> damage to everyone else.

If you know in advance you are away, then there may be a case for OoO,
especially in a business context. But sometimes you are away unexpectedly
(through illness), sometimes you are busy (in a long meeting), sometimes
the email system breaks down (a message, or your reply, is delayed or lost
somewhere), and so on. OoO cannot help here.

The point is that people should _not_ jump up and down just because they
did not get a prompt response to a message, and sometimes neither the
sender nor the recipient can do anything whatsoever about it.
Consequently, people should understand that email is not (always) an
efficient nor guaranteed nor timely means of communication, and the more
we do to encourage that understanding, the better.

(My arguments are not for or against OoO, my arguments simply relate to
attitudes and expectations for email).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jethro R Binks
Computing Officer, IT Services
University Of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK