On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, Tim Showalter wrote:
I suggest you drop the recipient check, but instead use Sieve to do the
recipient check in examples. The Sieve interpreter may not know all the
address forms for the script owner.
I don't agree with this. I'm afraid if users try to configure vacation,
they'll blow it more times than they get it right.
The alternative is to allow a way to configure a list of addresses which
refer to the user running the script. As an example, my set is:
<chris(_at_)innosoft(_dot_)com>
<chris+*(_at_)innosoft(_dot_)com>
<chris(_dot_)newman(_at_)innosoft(_dot_)com>
<chris(_dot_)newman+*(_at_)innosoft(_dot_)com>
I understand the desire to protect users from their own stupidity, but I
really think this sort of check is better done in Sieve than in the
vacation extension itself. If we're assuming the majority of Sieve
scripts will be configured by MUAs, then the MUAs will probably get this
right if given proper guidance.
- Chris