Sieve Email Filtering: Use of Presence Information with Auto-Responder Functionality
draft-ietf-sieve-autoreply-04

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.

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.

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.