Hi Arnt,
--On Wednesday, December 17, 2003 4:16 PM +0100 Arnt Gulbrandsen
<arnt(_at_)gulbrandsen(_dot_)priv(_dot_)no> wrote:
| I had a ridiculous idea earlier today. It really needs to be shot down.
| You have to help fix my brain.
|
| Ready? Here it comes:
|
| Managesieve should offer mail delivery notification.
|
| The argument:
|
| Mail delivery notification needs some sort of authentication, and it
| needs knowledge of when which mailboxes receive mail. Sieve has the
| latter. The natural way to get the former is to keep a TCP connection to
| somewhere, perhaps turn on TLS, authenticate, say "tell me about
| deliveries" and just listen. That way, TCP/TLS will make sure that if I
| disappear, noone else gets my news.
|
| So, are two TCP protocols for talking to Sieve software desirable? I say
| that's one too much, which leaves me with the suggestion: Managesieve
| should offer mail delivery nofication. Ridiculous.
Well, in the case of IMAP, messages can be delivered outside of the normal
'delivery loop' - i.e. by an IMAP APPEND or COPY. I would certainly want a
mail notification protocol to be able to notify me of IMAP APPENDs and
COPYs adding new messages to a mailbox as well as regular delivery. What is
needed is notification on the mailstore, not just on the delivery process.
Right. Another issue is that while sieves are typically applied near the time
of delivery, this doesn't mean they are applied _at_ the time of delivery. It
is entirely possible and legal for them to be applied before or after, and by
an entirely separate agent from the delivery agent. For example, Sun's
implementation supports sieve and notifications already but in most cases they
aren't even done on the same machine.
Store notifications just don't match up to sieve very well.
Ned