[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Sieve extensions

1998-01-19 09:38:41
Tim Showalter wrote:

So you're saying that we can deliniate the failure conditions, assigning
each a failure code?  What happens when you miss one?  What happens when
the reporting agent can't understand one of them?

I just thought it might be good to define a basic set of useful
information used in failure reports. Compare with DSN/MDN. Like:

Filter agent: filter(_at_)test(_dot_)com // or whatever to identify the reporter
Status: failed
Reason: syntax error
Ruleset name: test
Line: 3
Position: 35

I believe that it's likely that the user will choose a filtering agent that
uses a language they understand.

Why? Why do a filter agent need to know about languages (other than
filter description languages of course :)? It just complicates things.
Part from that, there have to be pieces of information in a machine
readable form as well. That form should provide information enough for
the UA to be able to guide the user when making corrections.

Having a direct interaction between a filter agent and the end user (in
the form of human readable freeform text information) is not something I
would recommend. Sure, good for debugging and for a system
administrator, but providing multiple language support at this level? I
don't think so. Just leave the user interaction to the UA, including how
to present an error condition to the user; the message, the language,
type of dialog etc.

Providing a way to change the error
language would be necessary, and it's one more thing that has to go with
the script through the transport.

Really? You will run into the same set of considerations currently
discussed in "Sieve extensions" thread. What if not supported... etc.

I think that the agent submitting code to the filtering agent should
validate code.  (The meaning I meant to attach to "transporting agent"
wasn't the obvious one; sorry.)

Yeah, okay. I agree that in any case validation should be performed as
close to the originating user as possible.

Standardizing on magic addresses worries me a little, but it's a
possibility.  I'll note that if you have any problems with ACAP, you have
all the same problems with this -- impossible to validate the script.

Maybe. I can't say I have spend too much time analysing that.
I'm not sure what you mean by "magic addresses". I essentially think of
a list processor like behavior with the addition of signed and maybe
encrypted MIME parts. It's not rocket science, as you americans like to
say from time to time... ;-)


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>