Re: Out of office/vacation messages

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Friday 26 December 2003, at 9 h 11, 
Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh@outblaze.com> 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 <bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net>
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh@outblaze.com>
cc: nanog@merit.edu

Imagine that this message arrive in your mailbox. If your auto-responder 
writes to nanog@merit.edu, it is broken, period. With the algorithm I sent 
(which is used in all serious responders), it will reply only to 
bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net.

Now, this message:

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net>
To:  nanog@merit.edu

Imagine that this message arrive in your mailbox. If your auto-responder 
writes to *anyone*, it is broken, period.

Now, this one:

Reply-To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net>
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh@outblaze.com>
cc: nanog@merit.edu

Here, there is a risk that even a proper auto-responder will write to 
nanog@merit.edu (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: nanog@merit.edu
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net>
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh@outblaze.com>
Precedence: bulk
cc: nanog@merit.edu

Again, if your auto-responder writes to *anyone*, it is broken, period.