Tim Showalter said:
Reply is not in draft 06, 05, or 04, because in LA, it was decided that
reply was dangerous without some sort of vacation-style protection
(limit number of replies in a single time period).
(I wouldn't mind having a vacation command that also implied a keep, but
that's not what we're talking about here.)
Yes. I have been meaning to talk about this for awhile and keep
forgetting. I claim that we *really* need a vacation extension or
direct support for vacation in this protocol from day one. I believe
this to be at least as important a feature as the fileinto action ...
perhaps more so because it is absolutely useful to any distributed mail
client.
The semantics of the original "reply" operation were half of what is
needed to provide vacation support, the other have being the reply policy
bits to meter automatic responses. Someone, somewhere had posted a
draft that I no longer have that described the functionality.
I really think that we need to address this issue.
Cheers.
---
Steve Hole
Execmail Inc.
Mailto:Steve(_dot_)Hole(_at_)execmail(_dot_)com
Phone: 780-424-4922