Subject: Re: last chance before last call on sieve and vacation

From: Gregory Sereda <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 12:23:07 -0400

At 08:54 AM 5/3/00 -0700, Randall Gellens wrote:
>
>... and never send a message to someone twice unless the :days
>  specified in the vacation message has been exceeded or the text to 
>be sent has changed.

The wording "a message" implies "the same message".  Since the sentance
is getting a little long, the editor may consider this wording...

 ... and never send the same message to someone twice unless the :days
     specified in the vacation message has been exceeded.

Greg Sereda
AT&T Labs

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 09:35:26 -0700

>       specified in the vacation message has been exceeded.

I like it.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might
be, and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's
logic!"

---

From: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
Date: 05 May 2000 16:53:34 -0700

> >       specified in the vacation message has been exceeded.

It strikes me that this is duplicating requirements more clearly and
completely stated elsewhere in this document.  I don't think the text on
how to do it was clear, though.

        If a sieve script changes, implementations MAY reset the records
        of who has been responded to and when they have been responded
        to.  Alternatively, implementations can store records of who has
        received which message, perhaps by storing a hash of the message
        and the recipient.

I'm pretty sure I can add more words there, but I'm not sure it would
help.  I don't know that it's worth specifying the algorithm, but
perhaps it is.

Is this an improvement?

Tim