Paul J Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Aaron Stone wrote:
>> Are you suggesting that we would check the To and CC fields against a
>> user's aliases, and only send vacations for things which appear to be
>> "personally adressed" to the recipient?
>
> My point exactly.
Either this was a useful clarification, or I read your reply to Udo to
quickly... in any event, let's step back a second:
Sieve can provide vacation support, and can do it in a [draft] RFC manner
(the managesieve protocol, which is reasonably well supported).
libSieve's vacation mechanism requires certain information from the
calling application, and hands back a suggested vacation response, which
the caller can choose to send if the right criteria are met. There's a
struct in libSieve, (which will probably be replaced with a chattier
function that takes more flexible arguments at some point), here it is:
typedef struct sieve2_vacation_context {
int min_response; /* 0 -> defaults to 3 */
int max_response; /* 0 -> defaults to 90 */
/* In Sieve 2, send_response is right here */
struct {
char *addr;
char *fromaddr;
char *subj;
char *msg;
int mime;
} send;
/* In Sieve 2, check_response is right here */
struct {
unsigned char *hash;
int len;
int days;
} check;
} sieve2_vacation_context_t;
If we can build the foundation of vacation support that provides the
necessary checks for whether or not a message should get a vacation reply,
then we can plug it right into libSieve and put together a big piece of
the sieve puzzle.
Aaron
--
