Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-03.txt

From: Michael Haardt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:42:47 +0200

Hello,

I took the chance to audit the Exim implementation for making sure I
read the draft closely and while doing so, I found some minor issues
with my code, but none with the draft.

Section 4.6, "Restricting Replies to Automated Processes and Mailing Lists"
gives a list of List-* header fields.  Is it certain that no other fields
are in use? Exim uses the pattern List-*, which would be easy to change.
I asked this on the Exim list as well.

Section 5.8, "In-Reply-To and References" says:

   Replies MUST have the In-Reply-To field set to the Message-ID of the
   original message, and the References field SHOULD be updated with the
   Message-ID of the original message.

   If the original message lacks a Message-ID, an In-Reply-To need not
   be generated, and References need not be changed.

Please add a reference to RFC 2822, section 3.6.4, "Identification
fields".  It explains how to build the new references header in detail.
The above section summarises it well, but it should tell that there is
more to obey.

Michael

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:35:11 -0700 (PDT)

> are in use?

No, but neither is it certain that other list-* fields, when used, actually
mean the message is from a list and should be exempt from vacation responses.

That's why I opted for an explicit list of fields in the document.

> Exim uses the pattern List-*, which would be easy to change.

> The above section summarises it well, but it should tell that there is

OK, I'll add a reference to it.

				Ned

---

From: Michael Haardt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:28:35 +0200

> That's why I opted for an explicit list of fields in the document.

That's what I guessed what might have been the reason.  I have a slight
preference for that as well and will look into getting this changed in
Exim.  

It is amazing how many odd ends Sieve helps to fix.

Michael