Hello,
On Mittwoch, 24. November 2004, Philip Hazel wrote:
> > If yes, it should be possible to check if the possible
> > recipient of a vacation message has been notified already
> > that very day or n - according to the setting of the
> > respective variable - days in the past.
> Yes, I suppose that could be done. I am not convinced that it is worth
> doing, however. As you yourself said, people think of "business days".
> *That* would be much harder. And what if a warning is sent at 23:59 one
> night? It would then send another at 00:01 because it is the next day...
That's true, and this is what indeed I'm talking about:
having a behaviour of vacation that comes closer to what
people are used to more or less intentionally.
From my point of view, there is no general need to set
once_repeat to a value smaller than 24h. In this case,
however, you regularly run into occurances of senders
not getting notified again during the morning hours just
because they already sent mail the last afternoon. The
crucial point with this is that people apear to forget
about the exact date when their contact will be available
again. To face this, there right now is the possibility
to stop using once_repeat or setting it to a value
smaller or equal to 6h. Both not really appealing.
The more elegant way, in my opinion, would be in using
simple daily steps with once_repeat.[1]
It's just a suggestion, I can live without it. Maybe few
people use once_repeat anyway, so I actually might be
asking for s/th that would affect a subset of a subset
of users :-)
Kind regards,
vt
1] I admit that naturally it would be *less* elegant in
the eyes of a mathematician ;-)
--
V. T. Mueller
Continum AG
Wentzinger Strasse 7a
79106 Freiburg i. Br.
http://www.continum.net
Tel.: +49 761 479409 70
Fax.: +49 761 479409 33
Mail: v.t.mueller@???
