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
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
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:njs @
http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World!