At 08:44 AM 5/5/2001 -0400, James M Galvin wrote:
>
>On Fri, 4 May 2001, Tim Pierce wrote:
>
> The Berkeley `vacation' algorithm seems to
> have held up pretty well over the years: ....
>
> I would not mind seeing those requirements codified in the next
> revision of the DSN standard.
>
>Just for clarity, DSN is RFC1894 and refers to delivery status. MDN is
>RFC2298 and refers to after delivery conditions, e.g., vacation notices
>and autoresponders.
We may have to disagree on this one. The way I read the standard, MDNs
first have to be requested with a Disposition-notification-to header.
Vacation notices are sent unsolicited, and as such, do not have a
disposition-notification-to style target, and thus the genesis of this
discussion, "where do we send the vacation notices"?
Now if you think that DSN applies to vacation notices, I will bring this
quote from 1894 up:
94> The DSN MUST be addressed (in both the message header and the
94> transport envelope) to the return address from the transport envelope
94> which accompanied the original message for which the DSN was
94> generated. (For a message that arrived via SMTP, the envelope return
94> address appears in the MAIL FROM command.)
Now, I don't *really* think that DSN or MDN applies to vacation notices.
But Vacation notices are closer to DSN than to MDN since they may be sent
unsolicited, and I think that, in the absense of other guidance, they
should be sent to the transport envelope address and not the from or
reply-to address.
--
We will fight for bovine freedom, And hold our large heads high.
We will run free, with the buffalo or die! Cows with Guns.
- Dana Lyons, Cows With Guns
Nick Simicich mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World!
