On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:43:31PM -0000, Nigel Swinson wrote:
So what if no number is specified, either explicit or implicit? Should
the action be ignored or cause the script to fail? The same question
arises on invalid number strings. I vote for ignoring invalid numbers
and actions without any number at all.
I think if phone numbers are supplied, then the implementation SHOULD
raise a compile error if the supplied string is not valid.
You assume that Sieve scripts are always compiled, but in fact RFC 3028
allows for them to be interpreted, too. Invalid phone numbers are
like invalid header names in comparisons to me. It's not specified
what happens in this case. My implementation generates an error to
ease debugging, but does so when interpreting the script.
Ok :o) And if more than the limit are specified, then this would be a
compile error?
Or a runtime error. :)
The :limit parameter I was proposing was meant to apply after any
character set encoding of the message. I'm not familiar with IA5, I had
hoped we could just pipe UTF8 and then truncate at some appropriate point.
So I'm not sure in what way your proposed :parts differs to my :limit?
Again, over here people pay per part. One SMS part has a fixed cost,
billed (mostly) to the sender. Very long SMS contain multiple parts.
If other telephone networks follow this model, then it makes more
sense to let people specify the maximum number of parts allowed,
which dirctly translates to money, cutting the message after that.
What good is a limit of 170 characters, if 1-160 characters cost one
unit and 161-320 cost two units? Then again, I may give a message with
many UTF-8 characters that will be dropped when converting to IA5, so
people won't understand why sometimes 200 characters "fit" in 170 octets.
With parts, they indirectly say "you can spend this much money" and do
not need to care about encoding or number of octets.
I wasn't actually proposing we standardize the default message format,
just describing what I was going to use, but that is an interesting idea
:o) That could make your sieve action just:
sms;
Yes, if you have a mailbox property that contains a phone number, but
I wouldn't make that even a SHOULD, but optional.
If we are to offer a standard, then maybe we should just drop the "To"
as well, as in the vast majority of cases I'd imagine users will know
who the message was sent to.
Not if they have multiple mailboxes, like office and private.
Michael