ietf-mta-filters
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [sieve] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-autoreply-00

2010-09-28 12:47:41
Hi,
Some comments on draft-ietf-sieve-autoreply-00:

Section 1: "Barry's question" - whilst it would be nice to be able to
extract information from an external list contact, I think in all
likelihood that will be hard to do. So I would suggest we drop this from
consideration. It can always be considered as an extension later.

I'm not sure the issue is that it will be hard to do, exactly, but rather
that sites are unlikely to willing to set up such capabilities just so that
users can personalize their responses.

We have sites accessing personal address books through Sieve external lists,
but they're doing it for whitelisting purposes (and less commonly,
blacklisting). It would actually be quite simple for sites doing this to set up
additional lists to access the common name field (or whatever) in the PAB, but
I really don't see sufficient incentive here for them to do so.

In any case, I agree that this should be dropped for now.

Section 3: change '"extended away".[I-D.ietf-sieve-notify-presence]' to
'"extended away" [I-D.ietf-sieve-notify-presence].'.

Section 3: change 'half hour.[I-D.ietf-sieve-vacation-seconds]' to 'half
hour [I-D.ietf-sieve-vacation-seconds].'.

Section 3: it might be good to include an example using the "notify" action
instead of vacation.

Yes, a "send notification to pager" would certainly seem to fit right in here.

Section 4: change "be send to" to "be sent to".

General comment: there are other kinds of tests that can be used for
auto-reply generation. One example shows how base SIEVE header "subject"
test can be used. But what about tests based on other message content?

- RFC 5703 (MIME Loops) would allow testing for the presence of specific
types of attachment that might then trigger a reply (e.g. 'Please do not
send attachments of type xyz in email - instead please provide a web link
for me to access it').

- RFC 5260 (Date) is another test that is useful for auto-replies. Should
we reference those as well and include some additional examples?

I don't think these are as important as including a notify example, but since
this is a draft about how to use the capabilities rather than defining new
ones, I think adding these would be a good idea.

- Also, should there be recommendations on whether or not auto-replies
should be used with RFC 5235 (spam/virus test)?

Definitely should include an example of this usage.

                                Ned
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve