Jamie Zawinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> just wrote:
Yes, I think the only one of those that is actually useful for
anything other than debugging the mailer (which users
shouldn't have to do, dammit) is
> Message actually read by recipient
Actually, we generally
Jack Repenning wrote:
>
> Message sent off your system
> Message arrived at recipient's system
> Message delivered to recipient's mailbox
> Message actually read by recipient
>
> I always had my doubts about a system that not only provided, but actually
> needed, an acknow
Recently, Jamie Zawinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
AMS is the only thing that has ever implemented
Return-receipt-to correctly.
Well, not the *only*. HP's MPE mail system HPDESK allows you to
select any combination of acknowledgements:
Message sent off your system
AMS is the only thing that has ever implemented Return-receipt-to correctly.
It needs to be in the MUA, not the MTA. Of what possible use is it to know
that it has ended up in the sendmail queue on the destination machine?
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 11:56:59 --100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Francois Felix Ingrand)
Our mailer here at laas adds a Return Receipt to *every* outgoing
mail (this was requested by our direction) no need to say that
this is rather annoying...
You could always add:
R
Our mailer here at laas adds a Return Receipt to *every* outgoing mail (this
was requested by our direction) no need to say that this is rather
annoying...
I notice that if you put an empty Return Receipt, our sendmail does not add
one, so I have the following hack to ask me if I do want a R
Jamie Zawinski wrote:
>
> I'm perfectly willing to install some new piece of clueless loser mail
> handling software and spend days trying to figure out what's wrong with it
> and how it's interacting with whatever garbage is in /usr/lib/aliases and
> /etc/sendmail.cf. Just as soon as each of yo
