Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id XAA10677; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 23:17:41 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Fri, 24 Jan 1997 23:17:31 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id XAA10644; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 23:17:28 -0500 Received: from lacroix.wildbear.on.ca (lacroix.wildbear.on.ca [199.246.132.198]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id XAA10607; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 23:17:14 -0500 Received: by lacroix.wildbear.on.ca from localhost (router,SLMailNT V3.0); Fri, 24 Jan 1997 23:08:13 -0500 Received: by lacroix.wildbear.on.ca from wildside.wildbear.on.ca (199.246.132.193::mail daemon,SLMailNT V3.0); Fri, 24 Jan 1997 23:07:45 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970124231116.006e983c@lacroix> X-Sender: "Jack De Winter" X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 23:12:24 -0500 To: John Gardiner Myers , drums@cs.utk.edu From: "Jack De Winter" Subject: Re: regarding messages from automated sources Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:09 PM 1/24/97 -0500, John Gardiner Myers wrote: >My preferred solution is to have automated sources respond to the >envelope return address and to have automated sources set the envelope >return address of the messages they send to something reasonable. > >The number of automated sources that set the envelope return address >to a request-process or is quite shocking. So what is something reasonable? I would prefer to see something like the Auto-Submitted header (is this an IETF approved field yet?) that identifies that it was from an automated source. This would keep the usage and processing down by identifying the automatic reply early on. regards, Jack ------------------------------------------------- Jack De Winter - Wildbear Consulting, Inc. (519) 576-3873 http://www.wildbear.on.ca/ Author of SLMail for 95 & NT (http://www.seattlelab.com/)