On Friday 26 December 2003, at 9 h 11,
Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I said is that the method proposed wouldn't cut down on OOOs to the
> list.
Yes, it will, in most cases. Let's take the following message:
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Imagine that this message arrive in your mailbox. If your auto-responder
writes to [EMAIL PROTECTED], it is broken, period. With the algorithm I sent
(which is used in all serious responders), it will reply only to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now, this message:
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Imagine that this message arrive in your mailbox. If your auto-responder
writes to *anyone*, it is broken, period.
Now, this one:
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here, there is a risk that even a proper auto-responder will write to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (at most once every N days, if the auto-responder is a serious
one). But it is the only case. It should not happen but it can.
Now, with the precedence ("belt and suspenders"):
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Precedence: bulk
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Again, if your auto-responder writes to *anyone*, it is broken, period.
