Fine with me, but now it is required: Who is responsible for setting
that address in the owner-email? The implementation? The user? Is it
related to ":from"?
Since the point is to identify the sender, I suppose the implementation
is responsible for the values of owner or token
The point is not to identify the "sender"; it's to identify the owner of the
sieve script, and that's all made clear in section 2.7.1. Only the
implementation knows how to do that. I don't think there's more that needs
I disagree and would appreciate adding
It is up to the implementation if ":from" sets the parameter value.
before the example in section 2.7.1. That allows an implementation not
to do that, exposing the script owner, or allowing it if it can be sure
the information is correct, offering more privacy. Either way, it says
the implementation is authoritative for setting the value. I feel as
it is, it may be misunderstood, because in the example in section 3 the
owner is identical to the sender, but just coincidentally so.
It does not change the current semantics, but expresses what is obvious
to you and possibly not as obvious to somebody else. The largest
misunderstanding about common sense is it being common, isn't it? ;)