[db-wg] Notification message change

Dear Thor Kottelin

You are correct about the use of the "Reply-to:" field. It was
originally added
to the notification message to allow people to reply to the RIPE Database
support desk if they had a question about the message. At that time we did
not have a problem with auto-responders and ticketing systems.

We will remove this field completely from the notification messages header.
The introductory text clearly states where to reply if someone has an issue
with the message.

Thank you for pointing this out to us.

Regards
Denis Walker
Business Analyst
RIPE NCC Database Group


Thor Kottelin wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:04:16 +0200
>> From: Denis Walker <denis at ripe.net>
>> To: Database WG <db-wg at ripe.net>,
>> 	ncc-services-wg <ncc-services-wg at ripe.net>
>>     
>
>   
>> With most updates to the RIPE Database, notification messages are sent
>> out. Many of these notifications are hitting users' ticketing
>> systems or arriving in mailboxes with auto-responders. The "Reply-to:"
>> address in these notifications was <ripe-dbm at ripe.net>. Our help desk
>> ticketing system was receiving hundreds of e-mails a month from these
>> auto-responders. This was causing a serious operational 
>> problem for our
>> Customer Services Department.
>>
>> To solve this problem, we have changed the e-mail header in the
>> notification messages we send out. They now have the "From:" and
>> "Reply-to:" addresses set to <unread at ripe.net>. As the name suggests,
>> any replies to this address are not read by anyone and they are just
>> dropped from our mail system.
>>     
>
> Hello Denis,
>
> The local-part "unread" gives such a suggestion--at most--in English, and
> not because of any standard or other convention. The "Reply-To:" line, on
> the other hand, unequivocally (RFC 2822) states that replies are expected at
> the address it shows. As you probably know, localized mail clients often use
> it to display something along the lines of "your replies are invited to".
>
> While you are to thank for the heads-up, I would have expected RIPE NCC, of
> all organizations, to come up with a more stylish and exemplary solution to
> the problem.
>
> Also, assuming that "hundreds" stands for e.g. nine hundred, that would mean
> 900 / 30 = approximately 30 surplus messages per day. Does such a volume
> really cause serious operational issues on a departmental level? Some of us
> (tinu) receive hundreds of spurious messages every *day* into (or intended
> for) *personal* mailboxes, and are easily able to handle that noise, perhaps
> with a little help from filtering software.
>
> With regards,
>
>