Using Icedove...Anyone tell me if there is a way I can get it to tell me 
if a recipient has received the mail I sent to him?
-- 
Regards
  Ted Wager g3tpi
   High Peak UK
    Using Sidux Linux

In article <hJ6dnUZpXeeMD-rVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet>,
	twager wrote:
> Using Icedove...Anyone tell me if there is a way I can get it to tell me 
> if a recipient has received the mail I sent to him?

No. There's no reliable way to get *any* mail program[0] to do that.
The mechanism varies between sending and recipient mail programs and
mail transport agents.

[0] Including all Microsoft ones.
-- 
Paul Martin

Paul Martin wrote:
> In article <hJ6dnUZpXeeMD-rVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet>,
> 	twager wrote:
>> Using Icedove...Anyone tell me if there is a way I can get it to tell me 
>> if a recipient has received the mail I sent to him?
> 
> No. There's no reliable way to get *any* mail program[0] to do that.
> The mechanism varies between sending and recipient mail programs and
> mail transport agents.
> 
> [0] Including all Microsoft ones.

Thanks..
  Friend has xp and he said it was possible on that...I do not have any 
m/s products but thought if xp could do it so could Linux...
   I am writing to a politician and it would be useful to know if he
gets the mail or not..

-- 
Regards
  Ted Wager g3tpi
   High Peak UK
    Using Sidux Linux

In article <urOdnVtmbt92AerVnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@posted.plusnet>,
	twager wrote:

>   Friend has xp and he said it was possible on that...I do not have any 
> m/s products but thought if xp could do it so could Linux...
>    I am writing to a politician and it would be useful to know if he
> gets the mail or not..

It's not reliable and can (usually) be turned off by the recipient.
What you're after is a "return receipt". Icedove can send them out.

-- 
Paul Martin

Paul Martin wrote:
> In article <urOdnVtmbt92AerVnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@posted.plusnet>,
> 	twager wrote:
> 
>>   Friend has xp and he said it was possible on that...I do not have any 
>> m/s products but thought if xp could do it so could Linux...
>>    I am writing to a politician and it would be useful to know if he
>> gets the mail or not..
> 
> It's not reliable and can (usually) be turned off by the recipient.
> What you're after is a "return receipt". Icedove can send them out.

Yeah, most modern linux mail readers can do it. I always turn it off, 
whatever mailreader i'm using.

However, it doesn't do any harm asking. But if you don't get a response, 
it doesn't mean they didn't get it. If you *do* get the response, it 
doesn't mean they *did* read it. If you send it to a politician, even if 
*somebody* reads it, it doesn't mean the politician ever saw it - i'm 
sure they have someone to read their email for them and pass on anything 
that's "important".

If it's important, you'd be much better off putting it on paper and 
posting it to them. Any fool can send an email - and lots of fools do, 
several times a day. Nobody takes much notice of them, and some of them 
even end up in spam filters. People take paper mail much more seriously.


-- 
http://MaldonIT.co.uk

On 2008-07-11, twager  wrote:

> Friend has xp and he said it was possible on that...I do not have any 
> m/s products but thought if xp could do it so could Linux...

All the mail client can do is ask the remote server and the remote
client to tell it if the message has been received and read.  If you
request a "delivery receipt" then the remote mail server will often
reply but some ignore it, and if you request a "read receipt" then the
remote user's mail programme can reply once the mail has been put onto
the screen or marked as "read", but that rarely works any more.

On Firefox, when you compose an email then you can go to the "options"
menu in the composition menu and select "return receipt".  I don't
know off-hand whether this is a delivery receipt or a read receipt.

-- 
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/

On 11 Jul 2008, Paul Martin outgrape:

> In article <hJ6dnUZpXeeMD-rVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet>,
> 	twager wrote:
>> Using Icedove...Anyone tell me if there is a way I can get it to tell me 
>> if a recipient has received the mail I sent to him?
>
> No. There's no reliable way to get *any* mail program[0] to do that.

Actually there is. You send him an email asking him to send you an email
if he's received your email. If he sends you one, you can be reliably
sure that he received it. (Tiny flaws left as an exercise for the
reader.)

;)

Nix wrote:
> On 11 Jul 2008, Paul Martin outgrape:
> 
>> In article <hJ6dnUZpXeeMD-rVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet>,
>> 	twager wrote:
>>> Using Icedove...Anyone tell me if there is a way I can get it to tell me 
>>> if a recipient has received the mail I sent to him?
>> No. There's no reliable way to get *any* mail program[0] to do that.
> 
> Actually there is. You send him an email asking him to send you an email
> if he's received your email. If he sends you one, you can be reliably
> sure that he received it. (Tiny flaws left as an exercise for the
> reader.)
> 
> ;)
  Did I mention it was to a MP ??

-- 
Regards
  Ted Wager g3tpi
   High Peak UK
    Using Sidux Linux

Nix wrote:
> On 11 Jul 2008, Paul Martin outgrape:
> 
>> In article <hJ6dnUZpXeeMD-rVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet>,
>> 	twager wrote:
>>> Using Icedove...Anyone tell me if there is a way I can get it to tell me 
>>> if a recipient has received the mail I sent to him?
>> No. There's no reliable way to get *any* mail program[0] to do that.
> 
> Actually there is. You send him an email asking him to send you an email
> if he's received your email. If he sends you one, you can be reliably
> sure that he received it. (Tiny flaws left as an exercise for the
> reader.)
> 
> ;)

It would be considerably more reliable to send them an email asking them 
to email you if they *didn't* receive your email!



-- 
http://MaldonIT.co.uk

On 11 Jul 2008, Will Kemp said:

> Nix wrote:
>> On 11 Jul 2008, Paul Martin outgrape:
>>
>>> In article <hJ6dnUZpXeeMD-rVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet>,
>>> 	twager wrote:
>>>> Using Icedove...Anyone tell me if there is a way I can get it to tell me if a recipient has received the mail I sent to him?
>>> No. There's no reliable way to get *any* mail program[0] to do that.
>> Actually there is. You send him an email asking him to send you an email
>> if he's received your email. If he sends you one, you can be reliably
>> sure that he received it. (Tiny flaws left as an exercise for the
>> reader.)
>> ;)
>
> It would be considerably more reliable to send them an email asking them to email you if they *didn't* receive your email!

That has exactly the same failure mode, only turned inside out ;)

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:02:09 +0100, twager wrote:

> Using Icedove...Anyone tell me if there is a way I can get it to tell me 
> if a recipient has received the mail I sent to him?
>
I think you'll find that all MTAs with the capability for sending mail
delivery notifications have it turned off these days. It was far too
useful to spammers for address verification.

As others have said, not all MTAs support message read notification.
Evolution 1.4 didn't and nor does mutt unless I missed something.
However, the current version of Evolution does support requests for read
receipts though not for delivery notification.


-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | 
org       | Zappa fan & glider pilot

twager  wrote:
>
> Thanks..
>   Friend has xp and he said it was possible on that...I do not have any 
> m/s products but thought if xp could do it so could Linux...

It's possible to *request* notification using any OS, if you have a mail
client that supports it.  There is absolutely no way to guarantee
success, however, since you have to rely on the recipient's system to
actually send a notification.

There are two kinds of notification for which there is some kind of a
standard: delivery notification, where the recipient mail system sends
confirmation that a message has been delivered to the right inbox, and
read notification, which lets you know that the intended recipient has
read the mail.  There has never been a time when delivery notification
delivery was absolutely reliable, because some mail systems have never
supported it, but it used to be more reliable than read notification
because it wasn't dependent on the actions of the end recipient.
However, most mail systems have now dropped support for delivery
notification or have it disabled by default, since it is a feature that
can very easily be abused by spammers or people who want to flood a mail
system for malicious reasons.

Read notification will work *if and only if* the recipient's mail client
supports the feature.  Even then, those mail clients that do support it
give the user a choice as to whether a notification is sent.

The only situation where you can be sure of knowing whether a recipient
has received and read your mail is where you are both users of the same
internal enterprise mail system, in which case the mail never goes
outside the one system and these things can be tracked with confidence.
GroupWise, Exchange, Lotus Notes and similar systems support this.

>    I am writing to a politician and it would be useful to know if he
> gets the mail or not..

He has no interest in allowing that level of transparency ;)

-- 
Bruce

If the universe were simple enough to be understood, we would be too
simple to understand it.

In article <slrng7je7p.kr5.itsbruce@store.bruce>,
	Bruce Richardson wrote:

> The only situation where you can be sure of knowing whether a recipient
> has received and read your mail is where you are both users of the same
> internal enterprise mail system, in which case the mail never goes
> outside the one system and these things can be tracked with confidence.
> GroupWise, Exchange, Lotus Notes and similar systems support this.

"The sender has recalled this message. Please use the supplied bleach
on your brain."

-- 
Paul Martin

On Sunday 13 July 2008 9:27 am, in MID
<slrng7je7p.kr5.itsbruce@store.bruce>, Bruce Richardson
(itsbruce@uklinux.net) wrote:

> There are two kinds of notification for which there is some kind of a
> standard: delivery notification, where the recipient mail system sends
> confirmation that a message has been delivered to the right inbox, and
> read notification, which lets you know that the intended recipient has
> read the mail.  

Not really. 

Substitute "read" for "displayed on-screen".
-- 
Ian...

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:17:35 +0100, ian wrote:

> On Sunday 13 July 2008 9:27 am, in MID
> <slrng7je7p.kr5.itsbruce@store.bruce>, Bruce Richardson
> (itsbruce@uklinux.net) wrote:
> 
>> There are two kinds of notification for which there is some kind of a
>> standard: delivery notification, where the recipient mail system sends
>> confirmation that a message has been delivered to the right inbox, and
>> read notification, which lets you know that the intended recipient has
>> read the mail.  
> 
> Not really. 
> 
> Substitute "read" for "displayed on-screen".

I think it was Thales that used to send out read receipts to that effect
"the message was displayed on the user's screen, it does not mean that the
user read or understood it". That may have been withdrawn by now due to
users understanding what it made them look like :-)

-- 
A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother.

Trevor Best wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:17:35 +0100, ian wrote:
> 
>> On Sunday 13 July 2008 9:27 am, in MID
>> <slrng7je7p.kr5.itsbruce@store.bruce>, Bruce Richardson
>> (itsbruce@uklinux.net) wrote:
>> 
>>> There are two kinds of notification for which there is some kind of a
>>> standard: delivery notification, where the recipient mail system sends
>>> confirmation that a message has been delivered to the right inbox, and
>>> read notification, which lets you know that the intended recipient has
>>> read the mail.
>> 
>> Not really.
>> 
>> Substitute "read" for "displayed on-screen".
> 
> I think it was Thales that used to send out read receipts to that effect
> "the message was displayed on the user's screen, it does not mean that the
> user read or understood it". That may have been withdrawn by now due to
> users understanding what it made them look like :-)
> 

There's also this:
http://www.didtheyreadit.com/

I have no idea how it works (though I can guess) and it all looks a bit
dodgy to me. Also I think I remember it being a subject on the Risks Digest
a year or so ago.

-- 
Geoff                                           Registered Linux user 196308
Replace bitbucket with geoff to mail me.

On 14 Jul, 09:12, Geoffrey Clements  wrote:

> I have no idea how it works (though I can guess) and it all looks a bit
> dodgy to me. Also I think I remember it being a subject on the Risks Digest
> a year or so ago.

Tracks access to a 1-pixel image?

Ian

In a dim and distant universe <487b0a6e$0$631$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>,
   Geoffrey Clements  enlightened us thusly:
> There's also this: http://www.didtheyreadit.com/

> I have no idea how it works (though I can guess) and it all looks a bit
> dodgy to me. Also I think I remember it being a subject on the Risks
> Digest a year or so ago.

I'm puzzled by how that works. I've just read the blurb on their website
and I'm still none the wiser. They're obviously proxying the message
through their own server and somehow forwarding it to the recipient, but I
still can't see how they can tell what happens to the message after it's
reached the recipient's mailbox.

Even if they could tell if a remote mailbox has been opened (which they
can't), then they still wouldn't know if it had been read - my machine here
downloads email every 10 minutes, even if I'm not around to read it.

I can't help thinking it's some kind of scam, but without signing up for a
free account, I'm not entirely certain.

Paul

-- 
Linux Technical Support & Sun Help - http://www.linuxsupport.org.uk/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/

On 2008-07-14, Paul Vigay  wrote:

> I'm puzzled by how that works. I've just read the blurb on their website
> and I'm still none the wiser. They're obviously proxying the message
> through their own server and somehow forwarding it to the recipient, but I
> still can't see how they can tell what happens to the message after it's
> reached the recipient's mailbox.

As someone else has briefly said, they'll create a link to an image on
their servers and add it to the email that you send via their servers,
then each link will have different URL parameters tied back to the
individual email so when you display your image in an HTML-email
capable reader with "load remote images" turned on, then it'll work.
It'll also work if the email is forwarded as HTML, and will also be
able to notify them every time the image is viewed (unless the viewer
caches the image).  Sending to someone like me who only reads emails
in text form or only loads images in emails when I want them, it's not
going to work.  It's very old technology.

-- 
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/

In a dim and distant universe ,
   Ian Rawlings  enlightened us thusly:
> caches the image).  Sending to someone like me who only reads emails in
> text form or only loads images in emails when I want them, it's not going
> to work.  It's very old technology.

Aha. Thanks for that. Yes, obvious, and like you say, very old technology.
Like you, I use a text only email browser, which is probably why I didn't
think of the obvious! :-)

Paul

-- 
Linux Technical Support & Sun Help - http://www.linuxsupport.org.uk/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/

On 2008-07-14, Paul Vigay  wrote:

> Aha. Thanks for that. Yes, obvious, and like you say, very old technology.
> Like you, I use a text only email browser, which is probably why I didn't
> think of the obvious! :-)

Well I do use an HTML capable email viewer (thunderbird) because so
many of my customers send HTML-formatted email, but it doesn't load
remote images by default, mind you I've not checked what it does do by
default, just trusting it not to run scripts etc, perhaps I ought to
heed my own advice on occasion ;-)

Mind you I don't put my company name or personal name in an email
signature, there was a case in the UK courts some time ago in which it
was deemed that a statement sent via company email was not
contractually binding if the sender did not use the company name in
the email body, including a signature, and that the From: header with
the company name was not enough to make it contractually binding.
Putting the company name in a signature was regarded as making the
email contractually binding.  I prefer to explicitly state what is and
isn't binding rather than have thunderbird do it for me ;-)

-- 
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/

Paul Martin  wrote:
> In article <slrng7je7p.kr5.itsbruce@store.bruce>,
> 	Bruce Richardson wrote:
>
>> The only situation where you can be sure of knowing whether a recipient
>> has received and read your mail is where you are both users of the same
>> internal enterprise mail system, in which case the mail never goes
>> outside the one system and these things can be tracked with confidence.
>> GroupWise, Exchange, Lotus Notes and similar systems support this.
>
> "The sender has recalled this message. Please use the supplied bleach
> on your brain."

Heh.  There are other hazards associated with "enterprise mail system",
often associated with bugs or coding oversights.  I know that right up
to version 5.5 of GroupWise, for example, if you send a message with
some BCC recipients, any of the ordinary recipients could find out who
had been BCCed by simply hitting "reply to all".  Also, if somebody
deleted/recalled a sent message before you read it, the GroupWise client
wouldn't show it in your inbox any more.  However, if you had POP or
IMAP access to your mailbox, you could still see the message via any
compatible client.

For all I know, those problems may still be there; thankfully, I barely
touched version 6.0 and haven't seen a GroupWise installation for years
now.

-- 
Bruce

Explota!: miles de lemmings no pueden estar equivocados.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:09:05 +0100, Ian Rawlings wrote:

> As someone else has briefly said, they'll create a link to an image on
> their servers and add it to the email that you send via their servers,
> then each link will have different URL parameters tied back to the
> individual email so when you display your image in an HTML-email
> capable reader with "load remote images" turned on, then it'll work.
> It'll also work if the email is forwarded as HTML, and will also be
> able to notify them every time the image is viewed (unless the viewer
> caches the image).  Sending to someone like me who only reads emails
> in text form or only loads images in emails when I want them, it's not
> going to work.  It's very old technology.

Still enough to fool some, MS Outhouse for instance will say it's blocked
remote images to protect your privacy, if it is some scam and you want to
forward it to the relevant abuse@ address it then says it has to download
the images in order to forward it, then it only forwards the links and not
the images anyway :-\

-- 
A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother.