On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 02:46:12PM -0400, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> 1. Delivery notifications should have the return-path (SMTP envelope sender)
> set to a null value to prevent loops.
RFC 3834 says "MAY" have:
3.3. Message envelope
[ ... ] Since in most cases it is not appropriate to respond to
an automatic response, and the responder is not interested in
delivery status messages, a MAIL FROM address of <> MAY be used for
this purpose. A MAIL FROM address which is specifically chosen for
the purpose of sending automatic responses, and which will not
automatically respond to any message sent to it, MAY be used instead
of <>.
> In this case, the return-path was
> set to what is presumably the specific non-functional mailbox which is the
> subject of the message text (although nowhere does the message say so
> explicitly)! Note that the message From field is also set inappropriately.
The message said:
*> Effective immediately, this e-mail account is no longer in service.
*> You will only receive this notice once.
So they probably run some database for that account. So setting the
envelope-sender and the From: to that database account exactly
guarantees the intended (and wanted) behaviour.
> 4. None of the above is rocket science; it is clearly specified in RFC 3834,
> which has the unsurprising title "Recommendations for Automatic Responses
> to Electronic Mail", and which itself distills long-standing practice
> regarding such responses as documented in the SMTP specifications and in
> such obscure documents as the Host Requirements standard (RFC 1123, a.k.a.
> STD 3). It's also common sense.
No, it is no common sense. Would it be that my mailboxe (and the
postmaster box) wouldn't be filled with zillions of brained Outlook
away/vacation messages.
For the rest of your message I fully agree.
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
"The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally
proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin"
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf