(First post - I've been lurking)
On 2000-08-29 at 13:28 -0700, Chris Newman wrote:
Suppose I make a client to compose and upload Sieve scripts. Either it
refuses to allow unqualified local parts, in which case it interoperates
with everything, except your "local" server. Or it permits them, in which
case whether (and how) it interoperates with a given server is
unpredictable when an unqualified local part is used.
require "domainless";
Indeed I think it would be quite useful to have a sieve client which can
test the script locally by running messages through the script. But such a
client couldn't perform a deterministic test unless unqualified local parts
were banned or it had a 100% reliable way to discover what the server would
do with unqualified local parts.
If the server accepts them, and you see them, it's passed them to you.
:^) The server may or may not have chosen to qualify them with a
default; if it doesn't, the installation should allow "domainless".
If this is SHOULD NOT, then there's no need to even code the support for
it. If someone wants a horrendously broken system, they can hack the
extension in themselves.
So the question is what _you_ do with the messages, because you've
received them. Specify that ``require "domainless";'' changes the
syntax of addr-spec to not require ``"@" domain'', and note some of the
problems which could arise from simply changing the grammar.
Make it scary enough, and admin will hopefully get a clue, and as part
of their upgrade to support sieve they'll choose to qualify local
addresses automatically in the MTA.
If the MUA doesn't use the MTA for local addresses (???) then the
messages will never reach a sieve filter.
$0.02,
--
Phil Pennock <pdp(_at_)nl(_dot_)demon(_dot_)net>
<Phil(_dot_)Pennock(_at_)thus(_dot_)net>
Demon Internet Nederland -- Network Operations Centre -- Systems Administrator
Libertes philosophica.
Sales: +31 20 422 20 00 Support: 0800 33 6666 8