On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>If the address is potentially on a mailing list (as is the case for most
>people's mailboxes), then the program should also try to determine which
>messages are list messages and not reply to them. You can do this by checking
>the recipient headers for the user's address(es). Checking the precedence
>header for bulk or junk. Checking for an envelope sender with a local part
>ending in -owner.
Your list seems to cover most bases:
man vacation:
% No message is sent if the `To:' or the `Cc:' line does not
% list the user to whom the original message was sent or one
% of a number of aliases for them, if the initial From line
% includes the string -REQUEST@, or if a `Precedence: bulk' or
% `Precedence: junk' line is included in the header.
%
% Sun Release 4.1 Last change: 25 November 1987
Seems the BSD folks thought more was necessary, seems reasonable
too:
% No message will be sent unless login (or an alias supplied
% using the -a option) is part of either the ``To:'' or ``Cc:''
% headers of the mail. No messages from ``???-REQUEST'',
% ``Postmaster'', ``UUCP'', ``MAILER'', or ``MAILER-DAEMON''
% will be replied to (where these strings are case insensitive)
% nor is a notification sent if a ``Precedence: bulk'' or
% ``Precedence: junk'' line is included in the mail headers.
%
% 4.3 Berkeley Distribution June 16, 1993
*-request seems more reasonable than *-owner, but why not both.
Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you receive
=> in this case put -request on mailing lists, but don't send
acks to -owner. Or do, now that I think of it, owner is supposed
to be a human and request is supposed to be a machine... so
vacation should be good.
Mailing lists using VERP could not rely on that without hacking
of course, but bulk would be sufficient (why not "list", seems
I've seen that a lot, maybe not recently though, is there a list
of things to put in Precedence: other than bulk and junk?).
>It would be nice if there was an rfc for autoresponders out there, as there
>seem to be more and more people using braindead ones.
But there is one that is applicable...
% RFC 1123, section 5.3.3, Reliable Mail Receipt
%
% If there is a delivery failure after acceptance of a message,
% the receiver-SMTP MUST formulate and mail a notification
% message. This notification MUST be sent using a null ("<>")
% reverse path in the envelope; see Section 3.6 of RFC-821. The
% recipient of this notification SHOULD be the address from the
% envelope return path (or the Return-Path: line). However, if
% this address is null ("<>"), the receiver-SMTP MUST NOT send a
% notification. If the address is an explicit source route, it
% SHOULD be stripped down to its final hop.
I know that only refers to delivery *failures*, but a vacation
program is in essence a notification of temporary delivery
failure, isn't it?
Following sections in RFC 1123, section 5.3.6, subsection b, and
section 5.3.7, subsection E, specifically address and explain
the reasoning behind this SHOULD rule, based on mailing lists.
I am sorry it is a SHOULD, but I suppose the writer had to take
into account old systems with no proviso for Return-Paths.
So, to begin with no vacation notification is sent if the
message is from a mailing-list, based on the above criteria;
second, if some other kind of notification must be sent (mailbox
does not exist) it should go to the envelope return address
anyway, which is the mailing list administrator.
Too many pieces of shit do not observe the extremely simple
rules laid down in the above paragraph.
--
#include <std_disclaim.h> Lorens Kockum
