Sieve Email Filtering: Use of Presence Information with Auto-Responder Functionality
RFC 6133
Yes
No Objection
Recuse
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
Your homily to users in Section 1 is a good message, but I think it is in the wrong document or targeted at the wrong audience. *This* document would, I think, mainly apply to application developers since it is an unusual user who writes their own Seive scripts. So the warning is better rephrased to advise application developers to be careful to not provide too many knobs and whistles, or to make sure that their implementations warn users to exercise appropriate caution. I would also note in this context that presence information might be a good tool to reduce the amount of autoresponses generated thus mitigating the sad effect of auto-responder functionality. --- Section 4 Despite the "intelligence", too, errors in scripts can result in private information getting to senders inappropriately. Is "too," superfluous? I find it hard to parse.
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
Example 2 in section 3 does what the last paragraph in section 1 says is a bad idea. Please consider reconciling these two parts of the document.
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
This is somewhat unusual language to find in a RFC to be: 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.
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) Recuse