[Top] [All Lists]

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-00.txt

2005-03-21 12:30:02

Hi Ned,

--On March 21, 2005 10:47:14 -0800 ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:

There are only two SHOULDs in that section. The first calls for responses
to be sent to messages containing list- fields. AFAIK there's no
anywhere that clearly associates the semantics of list- fields
specifically and
exclusively with list messages, so I think SHOULD is appropriate here.
(In fact
it may be a bit too strong.)

Keith's auto-response document RFC 3834 actually uses 'MAY':

... a responder MAY ignore any subject message with a
List-* field [I5.RFC2369]. ...

This brings up the point of how closely should the vacation extension follow the recommendations in 3834? Should we reference 3834 much more strongly as the basis for how to handle vacation responses, and make sure that we use the same MUST/SHOULD/MAY behaviour that 3834 describes?


Cyrus Daboo