[66108] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Out of office/vacation messages
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Fri Dec 26 09:35:46 2003
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net>
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh@outblaze.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: <3FEC418C.1030001@outblaze.com>
(Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh@outblaze.com>'s message of
Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:11:24 EST)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:30:35 +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
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.
