On 02/04/2010 04:58 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
> The bottom line is that this is a can of worms I'd really rather not open.
AOL. But if the main vacation specification were to be updated (fix
errata, proceed to draft, what have you), I'd be happy to see a sentence
like this:
"If the sieve processor recognises an address belonging to the sieve
script's owner in the To or Cc fields, then it's better to use that
address for the vacation reply than any other addresses the script owner
may also have."
Sounds like a good idea to me.
I think that's what my code does, so evidently I thought this behaviour
permitted by the existing RFC. But I wouldn't mind saying it explicitly.
It's certainly permitted, but not sppecifically suggested.
Ned
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve