Michael Haardt wrote:
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 do so automatically,
please add an option to disable that behaviour in your suggestion.
I was thinking about this as well.
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").
I like that.