Re: How to send a return receipt
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 11:10:21AM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> But DSNs are the way to go. The server should send the notification that it
how can you define whats the way to go, if I can show you a usecase were this
is exactly isn't whats needed neither whats wanted?
It has been said a lot of time in the thread (not only by me) that a reading
notification is in fact whats needed.
> What you want is an invasion of privacy of every reader. It is not of your
Arrgh. This argument is nothing more then FUD.
1) The reader actually has the right to choose weither he tolerates the privacy
"invasion" on a case by case basis (for you as a German this means, that the
Right for "Informelle Selbstbestimmung" is fulfilled)
2) ... and also on a every-case-basis as the reader is able to disable the
feature at all.
Additional: Your proposed DSN is revealing information without ever asking the
user nor informing him about this. Off course you can say that it does not
reveal much information concerning the privacy.
> concern if and when a user reads your mail. Such a feature should never be
Good to know that *you* can say what should or should not be a feature of
mutt.
> part of mutt. Besides if you are sending a mail to more than one recipient
> or an alias, you will get a notification from every recipient.
Yes, thats a disadvantage of the solution, but it is a disadvantage of DSNs
atwell (because not all recipient use the same MTA for receival). Also it is
not that bad, as long as you know that (some people actually _want_ that) and
know how to handle it. Also list of recipients could be a group of people that
communicate with each other, so its not always true, that you get a
notification from every recipient.
> What you want to do is bugging the MTA developpers to implement DSN (if not
> already available) not MUA developpers.
Nope. In this case wins the standard thats established by common usage.
Not only because of this, but because it is better in this case.
-Patrick