[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [sieve] New Version Notification for draft-george-sieve-vacation-time-00

2010-02-06 17:42:27
2010/2/6  <NED+mta-filters(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com>:
Considering the above way of determining the From address, why cannot the

  Unless explicitly overridden with a :from parameter, the From field
  SHOULD be set to the address of the owner of the Sieve script.

be met?

A few of us have already expressed preference for Arnt's text:
"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."

Dilyan, would you not like that text, or something similar to it?  I
think it's basically what you're asking for also, yes?

I think we can submit that text as a clarification to the existing
Vacation RFC, through the errata process.

We can try, but if recent experiences by others are any indication, this is
unlikely to be accepted as an erratum because it's making a new
recommendation, not correcting an error. There is increasing concern that
the errata process is being used to bypass proper standards review.

I think this is a reasonable change to make, but I'd rather make it in a
revision, not an errata.

Is there a common "things that might get changed in the next revision"
tracker? I've seen different working groups use all sorts of outside
trackers; having one in-house might be nice.

sieve mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>