Subject: Three more comments about the vacation draft

From: Michael Haardt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 17:00:44 +0200

I just noticed that the vacation draft 05 does not specify the
envelope sender, just the recipient.  I suggest to quote the
paragraph from draft-moore-auto-email-response and to refer
to it.

The following sentence made me wonder the first time I read it,
and it is probably not meant that way:

     Vacation responses are not just per address, but are per address
     per vacation command.

How about:

     Vacation responses are not just per address, but are per address
     per reason string.

The rest of the document talks about it that way.  Otherwise, the
Sieve implementation had to put an attribute to each command, e.g.
a sequence number.

The default subject is "Re: " followed by the subject with stripped
"Re: " strings.  Is the latter to be taken literally, as "Re: " or
does it mean "[rR][eE]:*" (case insensitive with zero or more spaces
following)?

Sorry about all these mails, but when I am done, the next person
doing a clean room implementation will ask less. :)

Michael

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 09:53:53 -0700 (PDT)

> paragraph from draft-moore-auto-email-response and to refer

I believe this has already been addressed in Tim's -06 revision.

>      Vacation responses are not just per address, but are per address

If explicitly specified the subject should also be included in this.

> does it mean "[rR][eE]:*" (case insensitive with zero or more spaces

RFC 2822 limits this to the literal string "Re: " and suggests that no other
forms be used. IMO this is the right course; any other course opens cans of
worms best left unopened.

				Ned

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 10:37:53 -0700 (PDT)

> If explicitly specified the subject should also be included in this.

Another point we should make is that the hash needs to be computed on the
strings before variable substitution has taken place. This introduces a
reference to the variables draft, but I believe it is informative, not
normative.

				Ned

---

From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 21:07:22 +0200

> worms best left unopened.

Keith Moore's draft suggests "Auto: "?

in our vacation feature, we use

   Subject: Auto: I'm away from my mail (was: SUBJECT )

"(was: ...)" is one of those small things which should've been
standardised.  Gnus will ask the user if the "(was: ...)" should be
removed from Subject when replying.
-- 
Kjetil T.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 09:48:56 -0700 (PDT)

> removed from Subject when replying.

Interesting. I had forgotten about that. I personally have a slight
preference for "Auto: ", but since this is only a MAY in Keith's draft,
I could live with either.

What do other people think?

				Ned

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 13:19:59 -0400

I like Auto:.

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

---

From: "Mark E. Mallett" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 14:52:17 -0400

> What do other people think?

Our implementation also already uses "Auto: " for auto-generated
responses, as well as adding an Auto-Submitted header, per
draft-moore-auto-email-response .  Also it seems to me that if in
general the sieve community endorses draft-moore-auto-email-response at
all, it should be done consistently.

Is the -06 version of the vacation draft online somewhere, i.e. to
avoid making remarks that have already been made?  Ditto a
non-expired version of the variables draft?

Yours,
-mm-