ietf-mta-filters
[Top] [All Lists]

Re[2]: sieve: vacation extension

1997-11-21 08:42:17
 In 
<Pine(_dot_)SOL(_dot_)3(_dot_)95L(_dot_)971121015302(_dot_)14538A-100000(_at_)nil(_dot_)andrew(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu>
 TJS(_at_)ANDREW(_dot_)CMU(_dot_)EDU writes:

On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, Chris Newman wrote:

You probably need a way to specify the delay between repeat notifications
if it's not the default one week.  I'm not sure how important this is.

I'm going to have to add a general way of doing optional arguments to
commands, I think, so it's easier for extensions.  There are a couple
commands in the draft that could benefit from this.

It might be reasonable to suggest that no repeat messages get sent as long
as the "vacation" command/action is in effect. If it is changed/deleted-and-
added-back, then a new log is to be created

After all, a good vacation message should report the time period you're
not available for, and one of these per recipient should be plenty. I.e.
if the vacation message reports;

 "I'll be on safari from November 1,1997 til May 12, 1998"

I don't need to get a reminder of that once a week.

As a side note; perhaps a "recommendation" in the spec that implementors
"suggest" to users that they at LEAST provide a time period that they will
be unavailable in every vacation message. Kind of a "Note to implementors".
A "Sorry, I'm out of the office" message doesn't do much to help anyone.

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.

I don't think there's a need to worry about the recipient check; if the
log ensures that ONLY ONE reply will ever be sent to a given return address,
at most you'll get one looped message to each of your various address
variations. It's probably alot easier just to deal with this than to worry
about rules for figuring out if you're really on a recip list... That's
never been doable in a reliable means anyway.

As long as only one reply goes to any sender, you won't have loops, and
that's the biggest problem you want to avoid with vacation programs (with
the mailing list reply's being second, and you've addressed that one). Even
on mail lists though, if you only ever send ONE reply, noone (usually) gets
too upset... it's the bums that send vacation responses back to EVERY list
posting that REALLY upset people! ;-)

                  -Chris Bartram


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>