Sieve Vacation Extension: "Seconds" Parameter
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
Alexey Melnikov Yes
(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) No Objection
Review by Ari Keränen: 2. The ':seconds' Parameter If 0 is specified and used, it means that all auto-replies are sent, and no attempt is made to suppress consecutive replies. This changes the base vacation specification, which does not allow ":days 0"; the change is necessary to allow operation of an auto-responder (see [I-D.ietf-sieve-autoreply]). Why is there need to change "days" to allow 0; wouldn't it be enough to allow 0 only for "seconds" and thus not (potentially) break backwards compatibility for the "days" parameter? Or if that was not the intention, the text is a bit misleading. Regarding security concerns, there could be a problem with two e-mail accounts that have set the delay (close) to 0, and one of them does not properly implement the "Auto-submitted" header field. If you then send an e-mail from one of the addresses to the other, wouldn't that create an infinite loop executing at high speed sending e-mail back and forth?
(Stewart Bryant) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Ralph Droms) No Objection
(Lars Eggert) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection
I am really surprised at the granularity proposed in this document. Do you really propose that there is a requirement to generate a vacation response every 27 seconds, but not every 26 seconds?
(Russ Housley) No Objection
Comment (2010-11-18 for -)
The Gen-ART Review by Suresh Krishnan on 16-Nov-2010 indicates the need for clarity about the interaction between :days and :seconds. The :seconds maximum only applies if :seconds is specified. And, the :days maximum only applies if :days is specified. Further, :seconds and :days parameters are mutually exclusive.