Hi!
Now that managesieve is being moved forward, we should consider it's
relation to draft-daboo-sieve-include.
Seems reasonable.
I've got a few points that I think have to be added to the managesieve
draft or would suffice to do in an extension of the protocol.
1. The managesieve draft needs to mention that it acts on the local
script storage, not on the global one.
Agreed.
2. It needs to be clarified that the active script is the "start script"
and that included (local) scripts need not (and cannot) be set active
to be executed.
Agreed.
3. Either the managesieve or the include spec need to clarify that
scripts that other scripts depend on (e.g. "includees") may not be
removed from the script store (return NO) and that includees have to be
uploaded before their includers.
I think this belongs in the include specification. It should deal with the
generic issue of how sieve storage schemes (including but not limited to
managesieve) manage dependencies.
4. There needs to be a managesieve protocol extension to report more
precise errors (machine-readable) for PUTSCRIPT: E.g. parse, syntax,
site policy, and dependency errors, together with line and optionally
column number. Actually, I think this should go into managesieve
proper.
I've like to hear how others feel about how much checking the managesieve
facility should perform on the sieves it processes.
5. A method (read: managesieve extension) to specify more than one
active script and the order in which those are to be processed would
also be nice, although personally, I'd be fine with using driver
scripts (which, however, requires the include extension).
I think this is the topic for an extension, assuming it is done at all.
Ned