Subject: Re: [sieve] New Version Notification for draft-george-sieve-vacation-time-00
From: Derek Diget <[email-masked]>
To: Sieve mailing list <[email-masked]>
Cc: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:44:28 -0500 (EST)
List-Id: SIEVE Working Group <sieve.ietf.org>

On Feb 4, 2010 at 14:01 -0500, Barry Leiba wrote:
=>
=>> Thought experiment: what if :time referred to a time of day? All
=>> vacation notices would be batched and sent at that time of day. What
=>> might be a use case for this?
=>
=>Mm.  ":time 00:00:00" to send the (de-duped) batch at midnight.  I
=>can't really see the need for that.  For the most part, you'd want the
=>first notice ASAP, and just have duplicates suppressed after that,
=>until the interval expires.
=>
=>The only reason I could see for delaying even the first notice until a
=>designated time would be if you wanted to be able to cancel them if
=>something has changed.  Like, maybe, "Don't tell people I'm gone
=>unless I'm not back by 3:00."  Even with that, what happens when you
=>get back at 3:01?  No, that just seems like a solution no one's asked
=>for nor needs.

De-lurking...I am not the experts you all are.

Should there be something said on how implementations handle deltas to the 
:time (or :seconds) window with respect to the previous response history 
database?  Does a change to the sieve remove/wipe the previous response 
tracking history?  I don't see any mention of that in RFC 5230.  For 
example...

Fred has a vacation rule with responses set for every 10800 seconds (he 
is in a morning meeting).  Wilma sends a message to Fred at 10:30 and 
receives a vacation response since it is the first message she has sent 
to Fred that day.  Fred gets out of his meeting and modifies his 
vacation sieve at 11:50 as he heads out to lunch with a :time now set to 
5400.  (He might or might not change the reason string.)  Wilma sends 
another message to Fred at 12:00 that would "match" her first message 
and not have caused a response under the original rule.  Does Fred's 
modification of the filter cause the sieve system to remove/wipe/clean 
its response tracking history and thus cause a new response to Wilma's 
12:00 message?

The reason I ask is that I see with user's being able to set vacation 
replies using seconds they might connect their 
Twitter/MySpace/Facebook/etc account status with vacation rules.  They 
update their ${SOCIALSITE} status and it updates their vacation sieve 
rule with their new status message. :) or :( depending our the side of 
fence you stand.  And I could see same thing in the IM/presence world, 
too.

If this is addressed somewhere sorry for wasting your time.

-- 
***********************************************************************
Derek Diget                            Office of Information Technology
Western Michigan University - Kalamazoo  Michigan  USA - www.wmich.edu/
***********************************************************************