ietf-mta-filters
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: sieve vacation draft, really

1999-02-17 10:16:44
+----- On 15 Feb 1999 15:40:08 EST, Tim Showalter writes:
[...]
| The ":days" argument is used to specify the period in which addresses
| are kept and are not responded to, and is always specified in days.
| The minimum and default value is 7.
| 
| "Vacation" keeps track of all of the addresses that it has responded
| to in some period (as specified by the :days optional argument).  If
| vacation has not previously responded to this address within that
| time period, it sends the "reason" argument to the Return-Path
| address of the message that is being responded to.

Shouldn't :days have a maximum as well as a minimum? I could just image 
what might happen if I set :days to 1000000. I like the idea of site 
defined limits. Presumably one can have more than vacation statement in 
a script and if that is the case must all :days be the same? What 
happens if they aren't? Should the respondent lists be independent?

I think that having independent vacation messages should be allowed but 
that the effect of differing dates be implementation defendant. I also 
feel that it should be possible to clear the respondent lists so 
that new messages are distibuted.

| "Vacation" never responds to a message unless the user's email
| address is in the "To" or "Cc" line of the original message.
| Implementations are assumed to be able to know this information, but
| users may have additional addresses beyond the control of the local
| mail system.
[...]
| By mingling vacation with other rules, users can do something more
| selective.
| 
| Example:
| if header :contains "from" "boss(_at_)frobnitzm(_dot_)edu" {
| forward "pleeb(_at_)xanadu(_dot_)wv(_dot_)us";
| } else {
| if header :contains ["to", "cc"] "tjs(_at_)andrew(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu" {
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^ I think that this is redundant as the test is implicit 
in vacation.

| vacation "Sorry, I'm away, I'll read your message when
| I get around to it.";
| }

/Michael