On 02/05/2010 12:44 AM, Derek Diget wrote:
Fred has a vacation rule with responses set for every 10800 seconds (he
is in a morning meeting). Wilma sends a message to Fred at 10:30 and
receives a vacation response since it is the first message she has sent
to Fred that day. Fred gets out of his meeting and modifies his
vacation sieve at 11:50 as he heads out to lunch with a :time now set to
5400. (He might or might not change the reason string.) Wilma sends
another message to Fred at 12:00 that would "match" her first message
and not have caused a response under the original rule. Does Fred's
modification of the filter cause the sieve system to remove/wipe/clean
its response tracking history and thus cause a new response to Wilma's
12:00 message?
No. But if no response was sent at 10:30, then one will be sent at
12:00: _Sending_ the messages is what triggers the suppression.
Suppose Fred changes the reply body. In that case, Wilma gets a reply at
10:31 saying "I'm in a meeting until about 11:30" (or whatever time Fred
guesses the meeting will end) and at 12:01 she gets "I'm at lunch until
13:20". Sieve chooses to send both, since the reply body is different.
(Fred could override that.) Fred's working day is shot, but Sieve is
doing fairly well.
The other case is that Fred doesn't change the reply body. In that case,
Wilma gets a reply about 10:31 saying "I'm in a meeting until 11:30" or
just "I'm in a meeting", no reply at 12:01, and when Fred returns from
lunch about 13:20, he reads her mail and may reply. Wilma may be a
little angry, but it was Fred who misled her, not Sieve.
If Sieve had reset the reply suppressor at 11:50, Sieve would send
another mail at 12:01 saying "I'm in a meeting until 11:30", and I don't
think Wilma would be any happier.
AFAICT, Sieve is doing acceptably. But for these short absences, it's
important to say when you expect to be back.
Arnt
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve