[Mimedefang] X-Auto-Response-Suppress header

[kd6lvw at yahoo.com]

--- On Mon, 5/21/12, David F. Skoll <dfs at roaringpenguin.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:22:39 -0700 (PDT) kd6lvw at yahoo.com wrote:
> 
> > Definently not.  A rejected message (returned to the sender) gets
> > more action (or administrative notice) than one accepted as spam
> > therefore unanswered.
> 
> Rejecting a message containing an X-Auto-Response-Suppress is not only
> pointless, but it violates the RFCs, which permit any sort of X-* header.

Obviously, I was not considering that case. 


> Rejecting communication with Microsoft Exchange is an interesting
> position to take and I sympathise on a philosophical level, but it's
> tilting at windmills.  Completely impractical if you actually rely on
> email for business communication.

1)  Not if enough people do it.
2)  You still haven't said why I should accept any message which violates the standards.  Malformed messages should be rejected for precisely that reason -- ALWAYS.