Subject: Re: new vacation draft

From: Michael Haardt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:48:20 +0100

> I generally believe this reflects the last round of changes, but there 
> were some editorial comments that I felt I couldn't incorporate becaue I 
> couldn't improve on my text.  If you have editorial suggestions, text 
> would be greatly appreciated.

Overall, I am happy with the new version.  Now, my list of implementation
notes mostly consists of the fact that message composition when using
":mime" is not defined anywhere and that there is a conflict whether to
use "Re: " or "Auto: ".  Further, "Re: " is to be taken as a literal
string, not as "[rR][eE]: *", as some older mail/news clients used.
I would be glad if a new version could state that clearly, just to be on
the safe side.

There is one (new?) problem in Section 3.2:

                    (The SMTP MAIL FROM address should be available in
     the Return-path: header field if sieve processing occurs after
     final delivery.)

That's not the case for bounces.  A bunch software writers thinks
different and as a result, the local part mailer-daemon at larger sites
is flooded with vacation responses of various systems real bad.  I know
that the Sieve vacation extension tries to avoid that by not responding to
well known addresses, but that does not make the above statement correct.
I suggest to remove references to "Return-path:".

Michael

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 07:10:04 -0800 (PST)

> That's not the case for bounces.

I must be missing something here. A bounce message normally has an empty
MAIL FROM. This means that the return-path would also be empty, or not
provided, or whatever, and the lack of this information should be sufficient
to say "don't sent a vacation notice".

> A bunch software writers thinks

Mailer-daemon normally appears in the From: header, not in the MAIL FROM
or return-path.