Subject: Re: sieve vacation draft

From: John Beck <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 14:18:37 -0700

Tim> This is a Sieve vacation draft. I would like to get the nits out of it

Tim> 3.6. Address Parameter and Limiting Replies to Personal Messages

Tim> "Vacation" never responds to a message unless the user's email address
Tim> is in the "To" or "Cc" line of the original message. Implementations are
Tim> assumed to know the user's email address, but users may have additional
Tim> addresses beyond the control of the local mail system.

Tim> Users can supply additional mail addresses that are theirs with the
Tim> ":addresses" argument, which takes a string-list listing additional
Tim> addresses that a user might have. These addresses are considered in
Tim> addition to the addresses that the implementation knows.

(If this was covered previously, forgive me, but I didn't notice it.)

I like the above, but what about the following?  An implementation would
be assumed to know that my address is <[email-masked]>, but I'd like a
response to go out for mail to <jbeck@[*.]eng.sun.com>.  Is this covered
by the "Implementations are assumed" clause?  The Unix vacation program
only looks at the local part, and I think it would be a Good Idea to make
it easy for people to specify the same behavior (if not the default).

-- John

---

From: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 Apr 1999 17:22:23 -0400

> it easy for people to specify the same behavior (if not the default).

I can buy that.  I guess we could make vacation take a comparator for
the aliases parameter.

I don't see any reason why implementations would be forbidden from that
behavior, but I can see reasons why it would be good for users to be
able to specify it.

Tim

-- 
Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>