[Top] [All Lists]

Re: draft-murchison-sieve-subaddress-01

2000-09-12 12:46:52

Randall Gellens wrote:

I think the draft should say why it is needed, that is, why not just use

     if address :contains :localpart ["to", "cc", "bcc"] "+foo"

The problem is that this will match both 'user+foo' and 'user+foobar'
which we may not want.

The :user and :detail options provide the same functionality as the
:localpart and :domain options -- they all allow for exact matches on
the various pieces of the address.

Without having variables, the :detail option doesn't have much, if any
use IMHO.  But the :user option is valuable when people use detailed
'from' addresses.  For example, if I want to do something with all
messages from you, I'd use:

if allof (address :user "from" "randy", address :domain "")

This will catch mail from you whether you use "randy", "randy+sieve",
"randy+imap", etc.  This being said, the best way to do this (and any
other complex address match) is via the regex extension, eg:

if address :regex "from" "randy(\\+.*)?(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com"

Also, should the draft deal with the fact that not all systems use "+" as
the character which introduces subaddresses?

Yes, it should probably mention this fact.

The only reason that I wrote (and implemented) this extension was that
is was suggested in [SIEVE] that such a thing might be desirable.  I use
:user in my own scripts, but with the regex extension, I can get by
without ANY of the address part options (even though they are cheaper

Due to the apparent lack of interest on the list, I was planning on just
letting the draft expire.  If there happens to be an unexpected
groundswell of support, then I'll go ahead and tweak the draft.

Kenneth Murchison     Oceana Matrix Ltd.
Software Engineer     21 Princeton Place
716-662-8973 x26      Orchard Park, NY 14127
--PGP Public Key--

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