Yes. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 21 January 2003 12:24 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Reply-To and out-of-office messages > > > Hi everyone, > > I'm running an application that sends out email notifications to > customers. > It is supposed to be a one-way communication channel but there are lways > inevitable bounces and replies from users. We also get our fair share of > out-of-office messages. Our emails are constructed in such a way that the > Reply-To: and From: headers contain distinct email-addresses in > our domain. > This enables us to determine which email we have sent has caused the reply > or bounce. > > I've seen a number of out-of-office messages that have been sent to the > address that was set in the From: header. Is this the way an > automated reply > is supposed to be handled? Reading RFC2822 does not really clarify this: > > "When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to > which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent. In the > absence of the "Reply-To:" field, replies SHOULD by default be sent to the > mailbox(es) specified in the "From:" field unless otherwise > specified by the > person composing the reply." > > I would interpret this as: "use the Reply-To: to reply to if present, > otherwise use the From:". > > Is my interpretation incorrect? > > -- > Jeroen > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
