Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:25:45 -0500
From: Gregory Sereda <gsereda(_at_)maillennium(_dot_)att(_dot_)com>
Filter list members,
Originally, vacation was thought of as an sieve extension because not
all sites could support it. Therefore, it was described in a separate
draft. Now that sieve has several optional features, like reject
fileinto, envelope, why don't we incoporated "vacation" as just
another optional feature in the sieve spec?
While I prefer the idea of vacation as an extension, we could do this.
The only good reason I can think of for making it a seperate document is
that it can serve as an example of how to write an extension.
I assume, althought its not stated, that scripts would need to
use the "require" action before using "vacation" as other
optional features are handled. If so, the example should
be updated to show it. Also, current example in vacation
has syntax error because it uses the older "forward", not
the current "redirect" action.
Fixed, thanks.
--
Tim Showalter <tjs+(_at_)andrew(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu>