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 "qualcomm.com")
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
CPU-wise).
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.
Ken
--
Kenneth Murchison Oceana Matrix Ltd.
Software Engineer 21 Princeton Place
716-662-8973 x26 Orchard Park, NY 14127
--PGP Public Key-- http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp