Re: Possible Sieve vacation bug (Was: [exim] Sieve vacation)

On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 01:10:07PM +0100, Bob Johannessen wrote:
> [are two sequential vacation statements with different :addresses invalid?]

> But I guess I probably need to take this to the
> ietf-mta-filters list, as this is (my perceived) problem with the
> draft and not with your implementation :-)

Please do so. I made several comments concerning issues already that
might have been obvious to others, but left room for interpretation to me,
and the more people do so, the better the final RFC will be. In theory,
doc/README.SIEVE should only describe implementation-specific details.

Whatever the draft will say in future versions, the Exim implementation
will follow it, because I consider the vacation extension very important.

Perhaps we should take this discussion to exim-dev, though. I was not
aware of the list before, but recently subscribed to it. It may be
interesting to you, too.

Michael