Re: last chance before last call on sieve and vacation
Randall Gellens <randy <at> Qualcomm.Com>
2000-05-03 04:56:22 GMT
In the Vacation draft:
> Alternatively, scripts can store records of who has received which
> message, and never send a message to someone twice.
I think this should be "implementations can store", since there is no
facility in Sieve itself for storing this info.
> "Vacation" MUST NOT respond to a message unless the user's email
> address is in the "To" or "Cc" line of the original message.
Shouldn't the "Bcc" header be permitted, as well? Some mailers (not
many, I'll admit) generate a "Bcc" header. If you have vacation set
and I use one of these mailers to send mail to your buddy, and I bcc
you, I should get a vacation notice.
In "3.7. Restricting Replies to Automated Processes", I'd suggest
also saying that implementations MUST NOT respond to mail that has
any header fields which start with "List-".
> Vacation does not affect the implicit keep.
This might be more clear if it said "Vacation, by itself, still
requires the implicit keep." I'm not sure, though.
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
If you can't be a good example, at least be a horrible warning.