12-05-2009, 10:59 AM

I've been using both Entourage and the Mail program and one thing I really miss is the ability to send e-mail with a receipt.

So here's some questions.

1: Can either of these programs be configured for an e-mail receipt?

2: If not, is there an add-on for e-mail receipts that will work on either program?

3: If questions #1 and #2 are both negative, is there a program available for e-mail receipt capability?

Thanks in advance.

12-05-2009, 11:12 AM

From the Entourage Help Site:

3) Why isn't Return Receipt (Disposition Notification Request) a feature in Entourage?

The reason why is that it's an almost useless feature which gives people false assurances, always a bad thing:

1) It doesn't work when the receiving email client does not have an automatic service that sends a reply. (Not only Entourage - there are many, many other other email clients which don't reply.) Therefore, if you don't get a reply you may incorrectly think it wasn't received,

2) It doesn't tell you that the recipient read the message anyway, only that his email client received it. Therefore when you get the reply you may incorrectly believe that he read it when he hasn't.

So - bad both ways round. It's a really feeble protocol, and good that Entourage does not (pretend to) implement it. The fact that Outlook implements it is an indication that the Outlook developers, unlike the Entourage developers, seem to think that everybody else in the world uses Outlook, which they don't. The Entourage developers, being on a "minority" platform, know better, and are smarter in not implementing it. To be a bit fairer, the Outlook approach probably reflects the fact that, originally, back in Office 95 for PCs, Outlook was an extension of an earlier client that worked only as intranet - something you used only with other people on your own Exchange server. Outlook started life doing the same thing - there used to be two modes - one for "Workgroups" on an Exchange server, and another for "Internet".

There were some poor decisions made when Outlook was extended to the Internet, that shouldn't be there. This is one of them - it's inaccurate and unreliable, since it assumes that everyone can do it, which they can't. You're much better off just not using it, since it cannot be relied upon.

And that's why Entourage does not implement it.

-- Paul Berkowitz MVP MacOffice

Many people who work in a corporate setting are accustomed to putting receipts on emails. That works great in an environment where everyone uses the same (Exchange) server(s). Unfortunately, the standard is not integrated into any email protocols. Even when it is, it is optional to respond to them. In short, it's a useless feature that works well in an internal corporate environment, but nowhere else.

12-05-2009, 11:55 AM

And for people like myself - I purposely turn that off on my Outlook in the office and refuse to respond to any such read request.

12-05-2009, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by cwa107

From the Entourage Help Site:




Many people who work in a corporate setting are accustomed to putting receipts on emails. That works great in an environment where everyone uses the same (Exchange) server(s). Unfortunately, the standard is not integrated into any email protocols. Even when it is, it is optional to respond to them. In short, it's a useless feature that works well in an internal corporate environment, but nowhere else.

I'm aware of its limitations, but it's my problem. Not directed at you, but I'm very critical of programmers who think they know better than me what I want.

12-05-2009, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by bobtomay

And for people like myself - I purposely turn that off on my Outlook in the office and refuse to respond to any such read request.

And I do almost the same. I don't send "automatic responses". The program I've used, Outlook and Outlook Express permit me, the user, to decide if I send a response.

I'm the one who makes this decision, not some programmer.

12-05-2009, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by fireman0174

And I do almost the same. I don't send "automatic responses". The program I've used, Outlook and Outlook Express permit me, the user, to decide if I send a response.

I'm the one who makes this decision, not some programmer.

Although, you've just made this particular programmers point.

Receiving an automated response does not indicate that it's been read.
Receiving no response does not indicate it hasn't been read.

I know we all look for and have the need for different functions in our software. But in this case, an implementation which provides no valid information (and therefore value for time from the programmers perspective), I do understand their stance.

12-05-2009, 12:32 PM

In a corporate environment, I can see your point. In a home or home office environment, why bother? Understand that the following conditions must be met for this feature to even function:

1. Your client supports the proprietary function.
2. Your mail server supports the proprietary function.
3. The recipient's mail server supports the proprietary function.
3. Your recipient is running a client that supports the proprietary function.
4. Your recipient has his/her client set to acknowledge the proprietary function.

All of that adds up to a very unlikely circumstance outside of a corporate setting. It would be one thing if the function was part of a mainstream protocol, but it is not. It's unique to the Microsoft intranet environment, and while it would be great for a mainstream protocol, at this point in time it's just not there - so why spend development dollars on perpetuating a myth?

12-05-2009, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by fireman0174

I'm aware of its limitations, but it's my problem. Not directed at you, but I'm very critical of programmers who think they know better than me what I want.

If you were a programmer, would you add a feature that you know very well is not going to work most of the time? All the thanks you'll get is a bunch of complaints from people who tried it and ended up disappointed.

12-05-2009, 04:19 PM

And at the end of the day in the corporate world it is merely someone 'covering their tail'. All the more reason they should be ignored!