blocking out-of-office

Koopmann, Jan-Peter Jan-Peter.Koopmann at
Fri Aug 4 11:42:01 IST 2006

On Friday, August 04, 2006 10:28 AM Glenn Steen wrote: 

> Yes. Not all can be solved by mailbox delegations, this is quite true.
> But is it really helpful for the sender to receive an OoO? Most times
> no. If it is really urgent, why would you be using *email* and not
> the phone? 

So I need to tell my clients to phone me everytime to make sure a more
or less urgent matter needs attending? Let's say 200 business days a
year e-mail would be sufficient. And during my 5 day vacation they would
need to call me in order to find out. That does not really make sense.

> In an emergency? Oh well, that is a philosophical matter I
> guess:-).   


> too. We have two problems: The policy decision regarding OoO (and
> this is usually the domain of the PHBs), and the badness of some MTAs
> in regards to autoresponding        


> Ah yes, the third option... Enlightenment. 

That works? :-)

> Unfortunately users are
> people, and people a people... and there will always be a few that
> simply don't read the guidelines. Sigh.  

That's what I think as well. 

Let's stop this thread. Whether or not we like he use of OoO there
always will be and noone here will change that even if we wanted to. :-)
In real world there is the need for OoO even if some of you do not agree
or would try to solve it otherwise. 


More information about the MailScanner mailing list