Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!lll-winken!uunet!lts!amanda@lts.UUCP
From: amanda@lts.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Return receipts vs. Delivery receipts
Summary: they're not quite the same thing...
Message-ID: <13-Apr-89.151831@192.41.214.2>
Date: 13 Apr 89 19:13:13 GMT
Sender: news@lts.UUCP
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Reston, VA
Lines: 24
X-Posting-Front-End: Stop by Booth #329, MacWorld/Expo DC...

I agree that it should be up to the receiving user to acknowledge (or not)
a particular message, but I do think that there is definitely a place for
a "weaker" version of delivery receipts, that is, some kind of positive
confirmation of delivery whether or not is was read.

To draw an analogy to physical mail, if I send a piece of registered
mail to someone, they can refuse to accept it, but I can still verify
that it actually got so far as their post office, and that delivery was
attempted.

This distinction carries over into electronic mail as well.  Delivery
receipts address two separate problems, as I see it.  The first is
whether or not the message ever actually was placed into the recipient's
mailbox, and the second is whether or not he or she actually read it
(or is willing to acknowledge having read it).  If I send some mail
that I expect someone to read, I would find it very useful to know
which of these cases is at work.  If it never got there in the first
place, then I have a problem with a mailer somewhere.  If the recipient
didn't care to read it, then I have a problem with that person :-).
Knowing which is the case helps me decide what to do about it...

Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation
amanda@lts.UUCP