Subject: vacation

From: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 19:02:22 -0400 (EDT)

Should the base spec provide a way to do vacation-style forwarding?
What should this mechanism be?

-- 
                                           Tim Showalter [email-masked]

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 16:50:39 -0700 (PDT)

> What should this mechanism be?

It can be there but it has to be optional, since vacation forwarding depends on
a database of addresses-already-sent-to, which implies significant per-user
storage, storage some implementations may not want to allow for. Management of
this database may be a bit more than we need in the base document, too...

				Ned

---

From: Steve Hole <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 10:29:45 -0600 (MDT)

> this database may be a bit more than we need in the base document, too...

I agree with Ned here.   It is an extension that we should probably work 
on right away though because it is such a highly sought after function.   
Doing that would be a nice way to test out how well the extension 
mechanisms specified in the base document work.

---  
Steve Hole			VP,  Research and Development  
The Esys Corporation		EMail: [email-masked]
900 10040 - 104 St.		Phone: 403-424-4922  
Edmonton, AB, Canada		Fax:   403-424-4925  
T5J 0Z6