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.
Bharat Suneja - 11 Jan 2006 02:26 GMT
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).

Signature
Bharat Suneja
MCSE, MCT
www.zenprise.com
blog: www.suneja.com/blog
-----------------------------------------
> 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
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> ps, we have to send OOF's to the internet.