Subject: last chance before last call on sieve and vacation

From: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 13:42:28 -0700 (PDT)

Hi.  I'd like one more chance before last call to get any input on
Sieve and the vacation extension.  Please send any complaints out
before May 3, 5PM (PDT) with any complaints; I intend to submit this
for last call before the end of the week (hopefully Thursday).

Thanks!

Tim

---

From: Matthew Wall <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 19:01:47 -0400

-- On Monday, May 1, 2000 1:42 PM -0700 the entity known as Tim Showalter 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

<begin quote>

>  I intend to submit this

<end quote>

To which Matthew Wall offers this response on Mon, 01 May 2000 19:01:22 
-0400:

clarification, Tim -- do you mean List Last Call, or submitting it for 
Extended Last Call to the IESG?

---

From: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
Date: 01 May 2000 16:42:43 -0700

Matthew Wall <[email-masked]> writes:

> > I intend to submit this for last call before the end of the week
> > (hopefully Thursday).

> Extended Last Call to the IESG?

I mean an Extended Last Call to the IESG.  We're not a working group,
so there really can't be a list last call.

Tim

---

From: Matthew Wall <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 19:52:59 -0400

-- On Monday, May 1, 2000 4:42 PM -0700 the entity known as Tim Showalter 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

<begin quote>

> We're not a working group,

<end quote>

To which Matthew Wall offers this response on Mon, 01 May 2000 19:52:29 
-0400:

Well, we can still do it if we feel like it 8-).

That said, I'm ready to move to IESG Extended Last Call.

- mw

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 23:40:32 -0400

In other words, THIS is the list last call. :-)

	Tony

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 21:56:22 -0700

In the Vacation draft:

>  Alternatively, scripts can store records of who has received which 
> message, and never send a message to someone twice.

I think this should be "implementations can store", since there is no 
facility in Sieve itself for storing this info.

>  "Vacation" MUST NOT respond to a message unless the user's email 
> address is in the "To" or "Cc" line of the original message.

Shouldn't the "Bcc" header be permitted, as well?  Some mailers (not 
many, I'll admit) generate a "Bcc" header.  If you have vacation set 
and I use one of these mailers to send mail to your buddy, and I bcc 
you, I should get a vacation notice.

In "3.7. Restricting Replies to Automated Processes", I'd suggest 
also saying that implementations MUST NOT respond to mail that has 
any header fields which start with "List-".

>  Vacation does not affect the implicit keep.

This might be more clear if it said "Vacation, by itself, still 
requires the implicit keep."  I'm not sure, though.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
If you can't be a good example, at least be a horrible warning.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 11:21:39 -0800 (PST)

> you, I should get a vacation notice.

Good point. I support making this change.

> any header fields which start with "List-".

I'd be more comfortable with a SHOULD NOT.

				Ned