[ris-int] FW: NCC#2004073298 Re: rrc01:PEERING 8210
Oleg Muravskiy oleg at ripe.net
Sun Jul 25 14:16:18 CEST 2004
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 06:27:26PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote: > Rene Wilhelm wrote: > >>>No, but people tend to reply to the last mail they have in their files, > >>>if you use something like hm-ack at r.n it looks as if a human will read > >>>it. > >> > >>We have an address for this, called <unread at ripe.net>. > > > > > >Why does the autoresponse have to come from an unread email account? This is to prevent autoreplies to our autoreplies to create new tickets and replies). For this purpose we have 2 addresses: - hm-ack, which is alias to /dev/null, i.e. deliverable black hole address. There is no much reason to use it in autoreplies, it's current use is rather "historical". I prefer to use unread or <>. - unread - this is unexisting address, so delivery to it will result in bounce from MTA. > > For RIPE DBM we do this to avoid mail loops (I think - Oleg knows more > about these mysteries than I do). > > For hostmasters, the "From:" is actually <hostmaster at ripe.net>. This is for human replies, not for autoreplies, except one case - when original message contains valid request. > > I guess it makes sense for the "From:" to be <ris at ripe.net> in this > case. For autoreplies, I'd rather not to use such address in From:, although it could be used in Reply-To:. > > >If I were a user and needed to add info to a ticket or query it's > >status, it would be most convenient if I could reply to the > >first (auto)reply to my initial message, as that ensures I get the ticket > >number right. > > > >This is how the OPS & TT-OPS ticketing systems work. > > > >(ok the tt ticketing system, currently doesn't autoreply, > > but if it would, it would send one "From: tt-ops") > > -- > Shane Kerr > RIPE NCC -- Oleg Muravskiy Software Engineer RIPE NCC
[ Ris-int Archives ]