John Levine wrote: > How far back do you want to go? People have been using subaddresses > like [EMAIL PROTECTED] since 1991. Mailing lists have been using VERP > schemes to encode per-message and per-recipient information into the > bounce address at least since 1998.
Let's limit it to "percent-hack" in RFC 1123, anything older is really too old. ;-) I can't tell if VERP qualifies as example, that is for mailing lists, folks sending out of office vacation mails to mailing lists are a hopeless case (= no argument pro or con BATV). > The advice in 3834 to send vacation responses to the bounce > address was already dubious in 2004 Strongly disagree, in fact I'm waiting for a compelling reason to propose its advancement to DS. Better than the normative references in RFC 5230 and sieve-notify-mailto. > Yes, I know that a sensible vacation program that followed > all the advice in 3834 wouldn't respond to list mail at all, > but as we all know, life is not that tidy. If they ignore RFC 3834 they get what they asked for, I have "spamcopped" dozens of RFC 3834 violations. Not counting, but I always add the 3834 reference manually in these spam reports, after all it is a relatively new RFC (in relation to say 1123). RFCs 3834 + 5230 are no showstopppers for BATV, but it needs more than what you have in the I-D (chapter 5). Frank
