Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:48:55 +0100
From: Michael Salmon <Michael(_dot_)Salmon(_at_)uab(_dot_)ericsson(_dot_)se>
| > +----- On 17 Feb 1999 16:50:57 EST, Tim Showalter writes:
| > [...]
| > | > 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?
| > |
| > | What's the problem?
| > |
| > | I don't have strong motivation for making multiple vacations in a single
| > | script act specially, although I believe that a given script should only
| > | send out a vacation message once.
| >
| > I agree that only one message should be sent but the text may vary
| > depending upon the address I received the message as and who sent the
| > message.
|
| Ok, what do I need to change in the text to make this work? I assumed
| this was obvious.
That one can have multiple vacations is at least not forbidden but what
I am interested in is how :days is handled. If I send a message to you
with :days 7 and after 6 days you trigger another vacation with
a :days of 5 which applies.
So you want two vacation messages per address? That worries me a little
bit. Does this make anyone else nervous? (If the answer is no, I have
no problem with it.)
I will try and fix the vacation text to make it clear that multiple
vacations are permitted.
That was what I saw as a problem but the behaviour probably doesn't
need to be defined.
| > | > I also feel that it should be possible to clear the respondent lists
| > | > so that new messages are distibuted.
| > |
| > | I oppose this on two grounds: first, how does one clear the respondant
| > | lists? Such things are very implementation dependant, and I'd rather
| > | just not discuss them. Second, Those features are in vacation for
| > | safety reasons; earlier drafts had a command that did not have them
| > | called "reply" that were removed for these reasons.
| >
| > I agree that it could be hard to define but vacation clears respondent
| > list (vacation.{pag,dir}) whenever the message is edited, it was that
| > functionality that I wanted.
|
| I don't know that I can guarantee a way of doing that. Modtimes are
| availible in all the cases I can think of, but I'm not sure what to do
| here.
|
| I can think of a good way of implementing it though that is robust and
| not real hard, so we could do this, if you'll discuss it on the mailing
| list. I'm a little worried about people changing the messages too
| often, though.
One think that I thought of was that if I can edit the sieve script
then I am not on vacation anymore or I am about to start another and
that the list should be cleared. What I would like is for every
vacation statement to have a list of it's own based on the message,
when a particular message disappears it's list disappears, the creation
and destruction of recipient lists is handled as part of the checking
of the script. I think that that is too hard to implement but that
doesn't make it undesirable.
The implementation of this stuff isn't real hard in any case; it's far
more difficult to write the parts of the code that actually do the
reply, as far as I can tell.
If you're *deleting* vacation actions, there's no problem (because all
you can do is delete the vacation actions anyway). If you go on
vacation, come back, then go on vacation again, that's different,
because you might not send the new message to me.
I have no strong feelings on the matter.
--
Tim Showalter <tjs+(_at_)andrew(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu>