🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep9.125711.16452@ni.umd.edu> louie@sayshell.umd.edu  
(Louis A. Mamakos) writes:
> Gack!  This RR thing is such a kludge!  I'd had to see it propagated
> to other mail UAs.  Much better to use another header line and attempt
> to get consensus on that.  
> 
> Also, some have found it rude to have their mail UA return an
> acknowledgement automatically when a message is read, and have patched
> their Mail.app to inhibit this behavior.
>
The 'Read receipt' feature is a good idea, BUT

What a horrible hack...

Nearly useless, unless all mail readers get a 'standart' header line  
asking them to return that read receipt in a known format, INCLUDING THE  
ORIGINAL MESSAGE ID.

When posting a mail message and asking for a read-receipt, the mail  
program should keep a copy of the mail around till you have received the  
receipt. It should automagically match the original mail and it's receipt  
and cancel them from the 'not-yet-read-by-the-recipient(s)' list. It  
should also remind you after some days that your message was not read.
I currently do that by hand with a 'RR' mailbox holding those messages.

What about some additional RFC for mailers handling RFC822 mail messages ?
The read receipt should be of very low priority, should never trigger  
errors if not corretly handled in order to get the overhead as low as  
possible. It should be posted in a known format, including the original  
message-id. Some problem may happen if the mail was sent to user 'foo' and  
that foo's mail is forwarded to user 'bar' (whose mailer returns the  
read-receipt'). Also one should write special code for multiple  
recipients.
-- 
----
Benoit Grange - PARIS - FRANCE

Mail to : ben@fizz.fdn.org (SMALL NeXTMails accepted, < 10kb)