RFC 2821 does not specifically go into autoreplies as far as I know it is good practice for all autoreplies to have a null sender to prevent loops. that being said... For example, if a spammer sends an email to me with a forged address and I have an out of office autoreply, that reply is going to go to someone who didn't send the email to begin with. Spamcop will blacklist our IP for this and they explicitly say to not use out of office autoreplies. Who is right here, us or spamcop? ps, we have to send OOF's to the internet.
Replied in microsoft.public.exchange.misc. If you need to post to multiple newsgroups, please have follow-ups redirected to one ng. (If using Outlook Express as your newsreader, when composing post go to View | All Headers to reveal the "Followup-to" field). -- Bharat Suneja MCSE, MCT www.zenprise.com blog: www.suneja.com/blog ----------------------------------------- wrote in message news:1136836956.119427.266580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > RFC 2821 does not specifically go into autoreplies as far as I know it > is good practice for all autoreplies to have a null sender to prevent > loops. that being said... > > For example, if a spammer sends an email to me with a forged address > and I have an out of office autoreply, that reply is going to go to > someone who didn't send the email to begin with. Spamcop will > blacklist our IP for this and they explicitly say to not use out of > office autoreplies. > > Who is right here, us or spamcop? > > ps, we have to send OOF's to the internet. >
