Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:20:00 -0800
From: Randall Gellens <randy(_at_)Qualcomm(_dot_)Com>
Every argument for adding this tweak or allowing that extra behavior
hurts the prime goal. Is this what we want?
I have assumed since the beginning that multiple fileintos were no
problem whatsoever. I was rather surprised that you don't believe this
is the case.
I'm opposed to adding more commands to the language that have nearly
identical semantics to fileinto. Regardless, we're going to have to
deal with multiple fileinto's being executed.
Please, let's go with something simple to understand and implement.
To me, that is one FileInto per message.
It is *not* simple to understand. We *will* get users asking "Why
doesn't this work?" If I tell the MTA to do two things and it does one,
how is it easier to understand?
I don't consider the implementation complexity to be that great.
Two "keep"'s cause a message to be delivered multiple times to the
default location. Two "fileinto"'s cause a message to be filed into
the specified folders. Two "redirect"'s cause a message to be
forwarded to multiple addresses.
Now we're getting fancy, and in addition I'm not sure these semantics
are desirable. I can see Sieve scripts which execute multiple
"keep"s, for different tests, with the intent that the message be
kept, not duplicated. Of what use is duplicating the message,
especially into the same mailbox?
I'm not particularly sure that two "keeps" should deposit the message
into the main mailbox; I don't believe that writing one message to a
mailbox twice should ever actually do that. But I do believe that
multiple redirects are not much of a problem.
We're adding complexity and reducing interoperability and/or
deployability. For what gain?
The implicit keep is only performed when no actions were executed by
the script.
So a script that does only a "Reply" causes the message to be
discarded? Does a DSN get generated? Very odd to get a reply and a
failure DSN for the same message.
No, a DSN should not be generated. That's what reject is for. Is that
not clear in the spec? (Should I fix it?)
If we're going to have an implicit keep, the only way it's going to make
sense is if it happens when zero other actions are done. If you don't
want an implicit keep, do a discard.
--
Tim Showalter <tjs+(_at_)andrew(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu>