On Friday 26 December 2003, at 9 h 11, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh@outblaze.com> wrote:
What I said is that the method proposed wouldn't cut down on OOOs to the list.
Yes, it will, in most cases. Let's take the following message: From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh@outblaze.com> cc: nanog@merit.edu Imagine that this message arrive in your mailbox. If your auto-responder writes to nanog@merit.edu, it is broken, period. With the algorithm I sent (which is used in all serious responders), it will reply only to bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net. Now, this message: From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net> To: nanog@merit.edu Imagine that this message arrive in your mailbox. If your auto-responder writes to *anyone*, it is broken, period. Now, this one: Reply-To: nanog@merit.edu From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh@outblaze.com> cc: nanog@merit.edu Here, there is a risk that even a proper auto-responder will write to nanog@merit.edu (at most once every N days, if the auto-responder is a serious one). But it is the only case. It should not happen but it can. Now, with the precedence ("belt and suspenders"): Reply-To: nanog@merit.edu From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh@outblaze.com> Precedence: bulk cc: nanog@merit.edu Again, if your auto-responder writes to *anyone*, it is broken, period.