On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Steffen Kaiser < skdove...@smail.inf.fh-brs.de> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Timo Sirainen wrote: > > But _why_ is BCC spurious? There are spurious BCC, but not in general. >>> If I BCC a message to somebody, I want to know an out-of-office state. >>> Just like for any CC or TO recipient. >>> >> >> At least one problem is email lists created using aliases. Like >> every...@company.com. >> > > Even in this case, why not? I'm probably also not interested in the DSNs > like "over quota" or something like that generated by the MTA. Actually, it > would be nice if MTAs would pass through ESMTP RCPT's NOTIFY parameter (RFC > 3461 sec 4.1), so the user could control the reply. > > Bye, > > > - -- Steffen Kaiser > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEVAwUBSuiRw3WSIuGy1ktrAQIFxAgAqVSPhBB2wrAl42B+yi9e9Jz9vL9KbtPD > +2dbvpyp+3iNeM+0DZoZ3rgUgIBZ/HMRrL6jb/SNmia7W0qyHDmMViw9+BMM2UTC > WenPdz/k4VU80RtE/7glVPUl+v6+wiwpom115wUSaBxuV3YZeIfUL6KrHCb8a6vh > zc5Ebby4noqnpIQamyLLHVPded9ib748sgFDnbRoD2CEqsyXiNwf4EzaGgrQ9zQ3 > jQbJ9HSIx93U5n4YZoKL/blyD1/K2V8xQ5roW+/QOkxzBM1w8HIhvwEVBjiZqJZQ > QLjyX+oQCHpIehyJPB3jwNgVh+i837RYI68G7x8REwGeMg65aNGJ6A== > =2KrB > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > I realize this thread is a bit out of date, but I recently sent a patch to the list to achieve similar behavior with a vacation tag ":x_any_address". The "x" is because its a crazy extension, and because the letter X is cool. There are a lot of cases where turning this behavior (responding regardless of the recipient) is bad behavior. E.g. every...@company.com. But then it is up to the organization to have a policy of not using :x_any_address, just like it is up to them to not use :addresses ["every...@company.com"]. I can pick a good default for my users, and unfortunately right now what they expect is :x_any_address. The thing I like about my patch is that, for my users, it can ultimately be configurable to the most likely 3 cases: 1) only send VAR for the proper account 2) send VAR for a user specified list of accounts 3) always send VAR regardless of recipient (but still following other recommendations in rfc 3834) The thing I don't like about my patch is: Maintaining it! There might be a better name for this tag. The confusion of having both :x_any_address and :addresses <string list> turned on at the same time Cheers