Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:01:03 -0800
From: Randall Gellens <randy(_at_)Qualcomm(_dot_)Com>
If we instead define a FileInto which takes multiple mailboxes, or
has any other semantics, we gain some power but reduce either
interoperability or deployability.
I guess this is the central point of contention. Other than Randy, is
there anyone else who sees a problem with this? I know Larry's having
to do hacking on deliver, but it wasn't much of an issue for us.
I guess that if I write my scripts well I will typically file on
Return-Path, so it can be dealt with.
I don't understand this comment.
I use Sieve to process all my incoming mail at work. The Sieve
script is close to 300 lines, and files mostly based on envelope
return-path.
How does this affect the need for multiple FileInto?
I thought that the way I would use Sieve is that I would file an
incoming message into *all* mailboxes that it matched, based on to/cc
headers. So if there was a message to imap, ietf-mta-filters, and and
tjs, I'd file the message into inbox.imap, inbox.mta-filters, and inbox,
allowing Cyrus to kill the duplicates. That way, since messages that
have to bounce off a majordomo or a sendmail get bogged down, I may get
messages in the right place very quickly.
If I don't have multiple fileinto, I can't do that. I have to split
mail based on the return-path (and hope that I don't get too many weird
things from mailers that use variable return-paths).
So here's an obscure case where multiple fileinto is useful. Sendmail
has this "MeToo" option, right? If a message goes to an alias that
expands to contain an address (say tjs(_at_)andrew) AND tjs(_at_)andrew is on
the
To line, unless MeToo is set, sendmail will just send one copy of the
message. This isn't very relavant most of the time (only when the
initial MTA is also the MTA expanding the alias) and such behavior is
not standards compliant, but it does happen.
Tim
--
Tim Showalter <tjs+(_at_)andrew(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu>