steve@avalon.dartmouth.edu (Steve Campbell) (06/13/91)
We would like to improve on the return-receipt messages that sendmail generates. The present messages consist entirely of headers, with the only clue to the message's purpose being the phrase "Return Receipt" hidden in the Subject line. Many users are confused by these messages. Even a simple 1 or 2 line message body explaining what the message means would be a great improvement. Before I start hacking at sendmail, has anyone already solved this problem? Please reply by email, and I'll summarize. Thanks. Steve Campbell postmaster@Dartmouth.EDU
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) (06/13/91)
In article <1991Jun13.121110.27660@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> steve@avalon.dartmouth.edu (Steve Campbell) writes: >We would like to improve on the return-receipt messages that sendmail >generates. The present messages consist entirely of headers, with the >only clue to the message's purpose being the phrase "Return Receipt" >hidden in the Subject line. Many users are confused by these messages. >Even a simple 1 or 2 line message body explaining what the message means >would be a great improvement. > Three points: 1. Users really should not be using 'Return-Receipt-To:'. It does not answer the problem of concern to most users. It is mainly useful as a debugging tool for email administrators. When viewed from this point of view, returning the headers is essential. 2. You ask for a message body explaining what the message means. What it really means is: "The message was accepted by a mailer with the 'l' (local) flag set in the mailer definition." Is this sort of message really going to enlighten your users? In most cases the user sending the message would like to know whether the recipient has read it, not merely whether it has been deposited in a mailbox on a machine which recipient may or may not occasionally log into. (Note that in most setups, delivery to /dev/null will produce a Return-Receipt). 3. There is a group currently involved in discussions on the general topic of email delivery and/or receipt notification. The administrative address of the mailing list is <ietf-ack-request@ics.uci.edu>. Thus any changes you make may be premature. -- =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science <rickert@cs.niu.edu> Northern Illinois Univ. DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
dejong@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (Hans de Jong) (06/14/91)
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes: > 1. Users really should not be using 'Return-Receipt-To:'. It does not > answer the problem of concern to most users. It is mainly > useful as a debugging tool for email administrators. When viewed > from this point of view, returning the headers is essential. What I find to be the real big problem with Return-Receipt-To: is that the respons messages do only say from which system they originate, but not for which user the message is generated. When sending mail to a single address that is no problem, but when sending to more people, the Return-Receipt-To: isn't useful. The same holds by the way for error messages returned by sendmail. If a user us unknown, it will tell which user was unknown, but when e.g. the user's program in the .forward crashes, I have found no clue to which user this message concerns. Or did I overlook something? Hans -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Hans de Jong Domain: dejong@idca.tds.philips.nl - UUCP: ..!mcsun!philapd!dejong - Philips Information Systems Apeldoorn, The Netherlands
kdenning@genesis.Naitc.Com (Karl Denninger) (06/14/91)
In article <1466@idcapd.idca.tds.philips.nl> dejong@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (Hans de Jong) writes: >rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes: > >> 1. Users really should not be using 'Return-Receipt-To:'. It does not >> answer the problem of concern to most users. It is mainly >> useful as a debugging tool for email administrators. When viewed >> from this point of view, returning the headers is essential. > >What I find to be the real big problem with Return-Receipt-To: is that the >respons messages do only say from which system they originate, but not >for which user the message is generated. When sending mail to a single address >that is no problem, but when sending to more people, the Return-Receipt-To: >isn't useful. The same holds by the way for error messages returned by >sendmail. If a user us unknown, it will tell which user was unknown, but when >e.g. the user's program in the .forward crashes, I have found no clue to which >user this message concerns. >Or did I overlook something? I agree. So I fixed it. This is what they look like here now.... To: kdenning From: Postmaster Subject: Mail delivery confirmation Status: OR Your message id <m0joH43-0009CHC@genesis.naitc.com> was delivered successfully. Delivery address: kdenning@nis.naitc.com (Karl Denninger) Your subject was: Test return receipt Date and time : Fri Jun 14 11:32:02 1991 I think this covers all that you need to know... it tells you that the mail was DELIVERED (not necessarially read), the address it was delivered to, the subject and the date and time of delivery (along with the message ID in case there's a problem). And it comes from "Postmaster" so if you reply it goes to someone who can do something about the problem. Now that I think about it, I should include the timezone in that receipt.... so people know what the "base" is for the time computation. -- Karl Denninger - AC Nielsen, Bannockburn IL (708) 317-3285 kdenning@nis.naitc.com "The most dangerous command on any computer is the carriage return." Disclaimer: The opinions here are solely mine and may or may not reflect those of the company.