ietf-mta-filters
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Three new drafts and a question

2003-04-26 14:54:46

[Ned Freed]:

  [Jutta Degener]:
  > [editheader]

interesting, the draft says "replaceheader".  "editheader" is a better
name, especially if :newname goes away.

  > [Ned Freed]:
  > >     I prefer the approach of having a single argument,
  > >     which can either be a string specifying a single field or a list
  > >     specifying multiple fields.
  >
  > Hm, you mean a real ["foo", "bar"] list, or a chunk of text
  > that becomes the header?
  
  I mean ["Comment: 1", "Comment: 2"].

I don't follow.  could you write an example?

list of header names makes sense with deleteheader, but for addheader
I think it makes more sense to only support a list of values.

  addheader "Comment" ["1", "2"];

you could do a list of header names with replaceheader as well, but
the counting is a bit tricky, and I think it's complex enough already.
you can always do N separate replaceheader instead.

  Good point. Even if we retain replaceheader I'd argue that
  :newname should go. You can always get the effect by deleting and
  adding.

if there is only one header, yes.

   if header "Message-ID" :matches "<*(_at_)*>" {
       deleteheader "Message-ID";
       addheader "Old-Message-ID" "<${1}(_at_)${2}>";
       addheader "Message-ID" 
"<my(_dot_)${1}(_dot_)${2}(_at_)example(_dot_)com>";
   }

if there is more than one instance of a header, you can't get at one
of them in particular.  the content in ${N} could be from the first or
last or a random one.

this might be an issue for the variables draft, it could say that the
search must be short-circuited (given, but perhaps not strongly enough
worded in existing documents), and the search done in first to last
order.  would that be appropriate?

-- 
Kjetil T.