Subject: sieve vacation draft and 3834

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:49:03 +0200

Hi,

I think section 4.6 is good, but it would be even better if it referred 
to RFC 3834 section 2, perhaps at the end of the first paragraph. Some 
of the later paragraphs could be deleted since 3834 says the same 
things.

Arnt

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:08:49 -0700 (PDT)

> of the later paragraphs could be deleted since 3834 says the same

Again, it is far too late to be considering such changes for this version of
the document. And even if that weren't the case I would object since RFC 3834
only provides, in its own words, "broad guidelines". IMO the point of RFC 3834
is to provide guidance as to what restrictions need to be in other documents
that define various types of autoforwarders. It isn't really intended to
provide the definition of the one true sort of autoforwwarder.

				Ned