creative use of vacation - is 'reply' action needed?
I had a user post a problem about getting a sieve script to work properly.
They were using vacation is a somewhat 'creative' way to try an implement
an auto-reply feature. In this case they had three tests, each of which had
a 'vacation :days 0' action associated with it:
1) Check for use of old email address and send reply telling correspondent
to use the new one instead.
2) Check for text/html or multipart/alternative and send a reply telling
correspondent to send plain text in future.
3) Check message size and if over some limit send a reply telling users not
to send large messages in future.
Irrespective of the value of these specific tests I do wonder whether we
need a proper 'reply' action to handle automated responses as opposed to
rejects or vacation (which has restrictions on how it can be used). In this
case the user was expecting multiple vacations to be sent if a message
matched more than one of the tests, but of course that is not allowed. It
would be possible to work around that using variables, but I really don't
like vacation being used in this way.