In <3476225F(_dot_)A728CB91(_at_)twinspot(_dot_)net>
TOMAS(_dot_)FASTH(_at_)TWINSPOT(_dot_)NET writes:
Chris Bartram wrote:
It might be reasonable to suggest that no repeat messages get sent as l> o
ong
as the "vacation" command/action is in effect. If it is changed/deleted>
-and-
added-back, then a new log is to be created
I tend to agree with Chris B. about oneshot vacation notices. At least
it allow side-stepping the issues he described. It seem to me that
having a vacation notice repeated at some interval is more a function of
the original sender's individual memory refresh rate (which may vary
from time to time :) than anything else.
Is there any strong arguments for having repeated vacation notices?
A nice touch would be if the originator's MUA understood the vacation
notice good enough to politely make a reminder during the vacation
period each time the sender tries to submit another message. I guess
it's only a dream of mine...
Not so far off perhaps... If the vacation notices were wrapped in a standard
format (like the MDN/DSNs) then software could potentially handle such
notices automatically. At least, as long as an RFC is being developed for
vacation messages anyway, why not go ahead and dictate that the vacation
messages utilize one of the standardized notification formats??
-Chris Bartram