I have a preference for this being an extension rather than
incorporating it into the draft. We are already receiving
customer demands for support of SIEVE, and are working on an
implementation. So we'd like to avoid too much function creep
in the draft, because our customers will (naturally) want us to
support all the optional features too.
I appreciate that the point I'm making is not a technical
argument, but I think it's good to get a standard out there for
implementors to work to. The current draft contains a useful
level of function, so we'd rather that SIEVE made it to a
standard and then extensions such as vacation were added on later,
as with IMAP.
What do other implementors think?
Edward Hibbert
DCL
----------
From: Gregory Sereda
Sent: 17 February 1999 18:25
To: "ietf-mta-filters(_at_)imc(_dot_)org"
Subject: Include vacation in sieve draft?
Filter list members,
Originally, vacation was thought of as an sieve extension
because not
all sites could support it. Therefore, it was described in a
separate
draft. Now that sieve has several optional features, like
reject
fileinto, envelope, why don't we incoporated "vacation" as
just
another optional feature in the sieve spec?
I assume, althought its not stated, that scripts would need to
use the "require" action before using "vacation" as other
optional features are handled. If so, the example should
be updated to show it. Also, current example in vacation
has syntax error because it uses the older "forward", not
the current "redirect" action.
Example:
require "vacation";
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ added required check!!
if header: contains "from" "boss(_at_)frobnitzm(_dot_)edu" {
forward "pleeb(_at_)xanadu(_dot_)wv(_dot_)us";
^^^^^^^ syntax, now called "redirect"
} elsif header: contains ["to", "cc"]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ redundant,
vacation
checks
"tjs(_at_)andrew(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu" {
vacation "Sorry, I'm away, I'll read your
message
when I get around to it.";
}