Feature request: Receipt marking

Feature request: Receipt marking

[John Wiegley]

It would be nice if...

WHEN a `Return-Receipt-To' header is added to an e-mail, AND I filter
the received receipt into the same mailbox I keep sent mail in, THEN
that piece mail will get annotated with special marks, letting me know
first that it was received, and then that it was read.  The Receipt is
kept as an attachment to the sent mail, but doesn't show up as a
message in its own right -- unless the sent mail is missing.

John Wiegley <johnw@gnu.org>

Re: Feature request: Receipt marking

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

John Wiegley <jwiegley@borland.com> writes:

> WHEN a `Return-Receipt-To' header is added to an e-mail, AND I filter
> the received receipt into the same mailbox I keep sent mail in, THEN
> that piece mail will get annotated with special marks, letting me know
> first that it was received, and then that it was read.  The Receipt is
> kept as an attachment to the sent mail, but doesn't show up as a
> message in its own right -- unless the sent mail is missing.

Is Return-Receipt-To used at all, these days?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Feature request: Receipt marking

[Kai Großjohann]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> Is Return-Receipt-To used at all, these days?

I use it.  Not often, but sometimes.  If I'm not sure about the email
address.

kai
-- 
Beware of flying birch trees.

Re: Feature request: Receipt marking

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:

> > Is Return-Receipt-To used at all, these days?
> 
> I use it.  Not often, but sometimes.  If I'm not sure about the email
> address.

:-)  But is it used for what it was intended to be used for?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Feature request: Receipt marking

[Kai Großjohann]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> :-)  But is it used for what it was intended to be used for?

Hm.  What was it intended for?  I confess ignorance.  Couldn't find
the header in RFC 822.

kai
-- 
Beware of flying birch trees.

Re: Feature request: Receipt marking

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:

> Hm.  What was it intended for?  I confess ignorance.  Couldn't find
> the header in RFC 822.

It's a negative bounce message.  When the message is delivered to the
recipient mailbox, you should get a receipt back that, indeed, it was
delivered.

But since most sites do not implement this, a missing receipt means
absolutely nothing, which makes the whole concept even less useful
than what it might have been if it had been implemented.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Feature request: Receipt marking

[Karl Kleinpaste]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:
>> Couldn't find the header in RFC 822.

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
> It's a negative bounce message.  When the message is delivered to the
> recipient mailbox, you should get a receipt back that, indeed, it was
> delivered.

Return-Receipt-To was never more than a sendmail peculiarity.  It's
entirely unsupported in any other environment, and often disabled even
under sendmail which could support it.  It appears not to be supported
at all on my RH6.2 boxes running sendmail 8.9.3.

Re: Feature request: Receipt marking

[Florian Weimer]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> Is Return-Receipt-To used at all, these days?

Return-Receipt-To is considered harmful because of its DDoS potential.
Most sites disable it now, I think, which makes this header relatively
pointless (because if you don't get the receipt, you don't know if
that's because of server configuration of server failure).

Re: Feature request: Receipt marking

[Simon Josefsson]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> Is Return-Receipt-To used at all, these days?

It's non-standard and "depreciated" since '93 or so. RFC2298 is the
way to go.

Re: Feature request: Receipt marking

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Simon Josefsson <jas@pdc.kth.se> writes:

> It's non-standard and "depreciated" since '93 or so. RFC2298 is the
> way to go.

Huh.  So some people still haven't given up on the general idea, it
seems, but at least the implementation details keeps getting more and
more complex.  That's progress, I guess.  :-)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen