With all this talk of sieve, I'm prompted to relate an observation
we have experienced. Perhaps folks have ideas on how to address
it. This is with 1.6.24. I haven't had a chance to try it with
2.0.12 or so.
One thing about "vacation" is that it appears to do a "keep".
Consequently, it is not possible to do a subsequent "discard".
Why might this be useful? Well, sometimes we have fac that are
going to be away for long periods of time, and won't be able to
check their email for what ever reason. It would be nice to use
"vacation" to report to the sender that they are away, but then
discard the message, as often requested in these cases. If we set
up the "vacation" notice, any "discard" is ignored and the mail
piles up. Yeah, a "reject" would handle that task, but that's a bit
more rude as it does a bounce rather than a simple response back.
Besides, often times bounce messages tend to cause more confusion,
or are rarely read.
In another situation we wanted to set up a redirect mechanism
involving "vacation". We established a "vacation" response, then a
"redirect" line. What's odd is that, at least at the time, I could
only get this to work if the "redirect" was listed in the sieve
script before the "vacation" portion, which seems counter-intuitive.
Furthermore, despite there being a redirect, the message was still
delivered into the inbox as well.
Perhaps it could be optional if "vacation" does a "keep" or not?
Why does it do a "keep" anyway? Looking at
draft-showalter-sieve-vacation-04.txt, it doesn't seem like we
should be having this difficulty. Perhaps this is just with 1.6.24,
and not 2.X?
--
Amos
