Re: Comments on draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-07.txt

[Michael Haardt <michael.haardt@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> > 4. We currently say MUST NOT notify if an Auto-Submitted header field 
> > exists (apart from "no").  We had an inconclusive thread going with a 
> > suggestion to change that.  What's the consensus?  If we're to change 
> > it, what should we change it to, given that it's critical to our 
> > loop-prevention story?
>
> I am weakly in favor of keeping the current logic. I find your argument 
> about using redirect in this case to be convincing.

I like the current logic, too.  It is possible to write a Sieve rule that
redirects messages with "Auto-Submitted:" (not containing "no"), should
that really be desired.  Should anybody suggest to to do automatically,
please add an option to disable that behaviour in your suggestion.

> Which reminded me of another question: should we describe how to handle "?cc=..."?

Yes. I suggest to add this right after the section about the envelope
sender:

  The envelope recipient(s) of the notification message SHOULD be set to
  the address(es) specified in the URI (including any URI headers where
  the hname is "to" or "cc")

Additionally, change:

  The "To:" header field SHOULD be set to the address(es) specified in
  the URI (including any URI headers where the hname is "to").

Michael