[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Sieve extension to expire mails?

2004-03-12 14:48:20

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Mark E. Mallett wrote:

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:11:19AM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote:
In addition to Ned's comments (which I tend to agree with), does
implementing this sort of folder semantic on a per-message basis even
make any sense?

Let's presume the script:

if envelope :all :contains "to" "rjs3+a@" {
        fileinto "";
} elsif envelope :all :contains "to" "rjs3+b@" {
        fileinto :keep-maximum-storage 100k "";

Does this mean the script only enforces the limit when an "rjs3+b" message
arrives?  If so, is that even useful?

That does look like that is what that script would do, and no, it's
probably not useful.  I would call that a bad script.

Well-defined syntax shouldn't let you write a "bad script".

When one
provides facilities in a language, one is not personally expected to
debug every script that can be written in it.

There's always a conflict between exposing and encapsulating language
facilities.  For example, the original poster had the notion of adding
a folder definition that would ensure that all operations into that
folder would operate the same way.  I wouldn't want that: I generally
go for the low-level granularity that lets the script writer have
complete control (and responsibility for their own errors).

(In my own implementation I have other ways of dealing with that
conflict anyway.)


Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer
PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * rjs3(_at_)andrew(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu * 
Version: 3.12
GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++ E W+ N(-) o? K- w-- O-
M-- V-- PS+ PE+ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ X- R@ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++ h+ r- y?