Subject: Re: Three more comments about the vacation draft

From: Michael Haardt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 11:41:24 +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.
>
> I believe this has already been addressed in Tim's -06 revision.

Good.

> >      Vacation responses are not just per address, but are per address
> >      per reason string.
>
> If explicitly specified the subject should also be included in this.

That makes sense, so how about this?

     Vacation responses are not just per address, but are per address
     per reason string and per subject, if it is explicitly specified.

> 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.

I agree, but asked, because I am used to software talking about "Re: ",
but in fact matching a regular expression.

I would appreciate if the draft would state explictly that the /literal/
string "Re: " is stripped.

Michael

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 08:47:36 -0700 (PDT)

>      per reason string and per subject, if it is explicitly specified.

Something along these lines seems fine to me.

> string "Re: " is stripped.

Sounds fine as well.

				Ned