Re: [sieve] AD review of draft-ietf-sieve-autoreply

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 30 November 2010 19:55 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sieve@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sieve@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 508253A6B44 for <sieve@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:55:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I0UsDN3EowRr for <sieve@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:55:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 482953A6C8E for <sieve@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:55:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ywh2 with SMTP id 2so3245825ywh.31 for <sieve@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:57:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cFRMiNhYeGjJLWqAd9oUQb8Lf+2QiBnxapm8egzMyzo=; b=Dgt5dNJS8RtdfZS2EIRoYwG5LMrgssmtp52QYCC+4c8+1CRweTVqzzIt1CS345Gd+v FgeK7QDF9Tq+41wnYFRbgYZWkHwq9yYSrta0qdX6jLBFjsar/CbtmGbSixSH+HqeiwE/ /FbvT+qZOziFwQVpBBwYmBucXxygId/6nWhtc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=T274Ej2i7eIw8diuxyX163/LfH7m+mRffmHcH+VDH1vJNEl/P3UfqFu57JS5sBfch8 VDXRV8h9Ei4cLoB8cHiffjDTm30h8cViUT4HbsfuAYwE/KoNlsmXOukQiz4OJ8FdedeT eGyOmOH9FklA+0XxZ0zQG35vk5rsKt4OosnwM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.165.131 with SMTP id k3mr2315736icy.312.1291147026476; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:57:06 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.42.225.4 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:57:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4CE4D234.3050506@isode.com>
References: <4CE4BF65.2080204@stpeter.im> <4CE4D234.3050506@isode.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:57:06 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: q3pS2Fr1nzBaYuOAmim1_aCQ74k
Message-ID: <AANLkTineqrYdZEeN4pR=yoskRSLguRdN-BsjUASA=NHS@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: sieve@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sieve] AD review of draft-ietf-sieve-autoreply
X-BeenThere: sieve@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIEVE Working Group <sieve.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve>, <mailto:sieve-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sieve>
List-Post: <mailto:sieve@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sieve-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve>, <mailto:sieve-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:55:56 -0000

>> The introduction references the last paragraph of the security
>> considerations, but as far as I can see that paragraph doesn't have
>> anything to do with security and I think it would make more sense to
>> include this text in the introduction...
>>
>>  Finally, users of any auto-reply mechanism should really think about
>>  whether automatic replies are necessary, and at what interval they
>>  make sense when they are.  Email is not Instant Messaging, and
>>  senders generally expect that replies might take a while.  Consider
>>  whether it's truly important to tell people that you'll read their
>>  mail in an hour or so, or whether that can just be taken as how email
>>  works.  There are times when this makes sense, but let's not use it
>>  to exacerbate information overload.
>>
>
> Works for me.

And for me as well.  I've made the change in my working copy.

>> This document normatively references several other I-Ds. Does the WG
>> have any concerns that the referenced I-Ds will change materially? It
>> seems perhaps safer to advance the referenced I-Ds first, just in case.
>
> The document references 3 other drafts. One of them is still being worked on
> (Sieve external list), the other 2 are already in IESG review.
> So far the proposed changes to Seive external list don't invalidate
> examples.

The only relevant change I foresee in external-list is the use of a
"pab" URI scheme.  The autoreply doc will wait in the RFC-ed queue for
external-list anyway, and if we decide to change one of the examples
to use "pab:default", say, we can do that during AUTH48.  It won't
change the substance of the autoreply doc, in any case.

Barry