RE: Re[2]: too many "Out of Office AutoReply"

[Ashutosh Agarwal <AshutoshA at PLANETASIA.COM>]

I have noticed that for the past few days , the IETF has been flooded with
these  so called "OUT OF OFFICE AUTOREPLY"......debate.
But don't you ppl in IETF think that these mails are a way to intimidate the
sender that the person to whom you are sending the mail is out of office or
something......why do we make every small thing such a big issue?
can we not use this medium(IETF) for someting better?

I personally would like to receive some kind of ACK from the person whom I
am trying to send a mail....so that I am rest assured that the mail has
reached him....I agree that in case a mail does not reach the concerned ID
we do get a mailer-deamon normally...yet i prefer this interaction/....

SO LETS STOP THIS DISCUSSION RIGHT HERE...AND USE THE IETF FOR SOMETHING
BETTER



Ashutosh Agarwal
ashutosha at planetasia.com
I trust I make myself obscure



> ----------
> From: 	Theodore Tso[SMTP:tytso at mit.edu]
> Sent: 	Friday, June 29, 2001 06:20 PM
> To: 	Gene Gaines
> Cc: 	David Lemson; Keith Moore; ietf
> Subject: 	Re: Re[2]: too many "Out of Office AutoReply"
> 
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 04:08:20AM -0400, Gene Gaines wrote:
> > Why in god's name would any email program worth 2 cents
> > not have this feature?
> 
> That's easy; for a long time (although this seems to be less true
> today), Microsoft apparently had a strong bias of trying very hard to
> hire the best and the brightest --- of people fresh out of college.
> Heaven forfend that they actually hire people with industry
> experience.
> 
> As a result, a lot of things which most people would consider common
> sense and common practice don't actually happen until after the first
> couple of versions of the program are released and people scream
> bloody murder.  (After all, good vacation hueristics have been around
> for well over a decade.)  
> 
> However, when MS Exchange finally has this feature, no doubt their
> marketing folks will trumpet how they "invented" it.  After all, this
> is the sort of thing which is why they claim they need the "freedom to
> innovate".
> 
> 						- Ted
>