4. We currently say MUST NOT notify if an Auto-Submitted header field
exists (apart from "no"). We had an inconclusive thread going with a
suggestion to change that. What's the consensus? If we're to change
it, what should we change it to, given that it's critical to our
loop-prevention story?
I am weakly in favor of keeping the current logic. I find your argument
about using redirect in this case to be convincing.
I like the current logic, too. It is possible to write a Sieve rule that
redirects messages with "Auto-Submitted:" (not containing "no"), should
that really be desired. Should anybody suggest to to do automatically,
please add an option to disable that behaviour in your suggestion.
Which reminded me of another question: should we describe how to handle
"?cc=..."?
Yes. I suggest to add this right after the section about the envelope
sender:
The envelope recipient(s) of the notification message SHOULD be set to
the address(es) specified in the URI (including any URI headers where
the hname is "to" or "cc")
Additionally, change:
The "To:" header field SHOULD be set to the address(es) specified in
the URI (including any URI headers where the hname is "to").
Michael