>>>>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 15:22:16 +0200,
>>>>> Atif Ghaffar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (ag) writes:
ag> I prefer the first one, but it has one drawback.
ag> Vacation replies will be sent to group addresses , example info@company,
ag> sales@company etc.
If it's a mailing list done with relatively rational software, then
in most cases the response should only go to the list admin, right?
I'm torn about this one myself. On one hand I see why :addresses is
done. Too many times I've seen the flood of vacation messages that
can slam a list. The openssl-users list had a particularly nasty
batch of these not long ago.
On the other hand, with our Cyrus server receiving incoming mail via
LMTP on a private network to the MTA router, we too have to fiddle
with this :addresses setting quite a bit, and with the number of
aliases folks sometimes get, this can be a real headache.
At least Sieve doesn't reply to all the addresses in all the
headers, but instead only to the envelope sender. It seems like
these vacation mechanisms that cause such a mess blast a response to
every address it can find in the header. So maybe having an
imapd.conf flag to loosen the restriction on vacation wouldn't be
toooo catastrophic?
On the other hand, Sieve is now an RFC, and while the vacation
extension is currently a draft and not yet an RFC, perhaps it is far
enough along that offering some kind of option would violate that
specification.
Ugh.
--
Amos
