[Mimedefang] auto reply / vacation

Tilman Schmidt t.schmidt at phoenixsoftware.de
Tue Feb 2 05:03:10 EST 2010


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am 2010-02-02 08:39 schrieb ml ml:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:12 AM, - <kd6lvw at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> --- On Mon, 2/1/10, ml ml <mliebherr99 at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> has anyone got some hints for me how to write a  auto  reply /
>>> vacation script? Or is there already such a project out ...
>>
>> Yes:  DON'T.  There are enough problems with existing autoresponders out there.
> 
> well, there is the feature request which needs to be done. So there is
> no way around it.

In my experience, there is almost always a way around unreasonable
feature requests, although it typically involves hurdles such as
actually talking to the requestors.

> What problems exactly, how can they be avoided?

Firstly, using an autoresponder very rarely serves any useful purpose.
In many cases it actually harms, for example by leaking internal
information (such as the existence of the mail address, the real name of
its owner, or the reason and/or duration of his or her absence), creates
false expectations ("will reply promptly after my return" :-) and/or
annoys the recipient ("why is no one filling in?").

Secondly, autoresponders frequently respond to mails they shouldn't,
such as mailing lists, newsletters, SPAM, "do not reply" mails, machine
generated notification mails, DSNs, mails from other autoresponders ...
Reliably avoiding that is very hard.

Thirdly, autoresponders may send their autoresponse to the wrong
recipient. It's of course not always obvious who the correct recipient
of an autoresponse should be or how to determine that algorithmically.

Fourthly, the autoresponse is often useless to the recipient. I
regularly receive automatic "I have received your mail and will reply to
it promptly" messages which don't give me any clue to which mail they
might refer to, and from mailboxes to which I never consciously sent a mail.

And fifthly (does that word exist?), autoresponders interact badly with
another nuisance "feature request", legal disclaimers. The autoresponder
emits a canned message that doesn't give a clue to whom it might be
addressed and what it might referred to, and the attached disclaimer
then asks the recipient to "delete all copies of the message" if he or
she is "not the intended recipient". What kind of impression will the
recipient of such a message get about the legal and technical competence
of the organization that was responsible for the emission of such an
incoherent piece of mail?

HTH
Tilman

- -- 
Tilman Schmidt
Phoenix Software GmbH
Bonn, Germany
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAktn+F4ACgkQ780oymN0g8PSmwCdG8BYaJWS5DOiiP8AaFROlro4
YAoAnigJTJDvpJNQ6yZEYYx1eAuVW8tG
=O91t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the MIMEDefang mailing list