Hi,
--On Saturday, March 12, 2005 07:16:03 PM -0500 Cyrus Daboo
<daboo(_at_)isamet(_dot_)com> wrote:
> Another option might be to allow the separator to be specified as a
> parameter in the test, as its likely that the script author may have more
> explicit knowledge of the separator in addresses being tested. e.g. I
> know that the separator for my domain is '+' and for 'example.com' is ';'
>
> if envelope :separator "+" :user "daboo" :domain "isamet.com" {
> redirect "daboo(_at_)mulberrymail(_dot_)com;
> }
> if envelope :separator ";" :user "daboo" :domain "example.com" {
> redirect "example(_at_)mulberrymail(_dot_)com;
> }
Actually I've changed my mind - subaddress should do a best effort on the
separator, and for more explicit control regex can be used.
Or :matches, for that matter.
I think the key issue here is the intent underlying the subaddress extension.
If the only intent is to slightly simplify something like:
if envelope :is "to" "ned+foo(_at_)mrocheck(_dot_)com" ...
or even
if envelope :matches "to" "*+foo(_at_)*" ....
we haven't accomplished much. But the real purpose of the subaddress extension
is to avoid having to explicitly code separator rules in the sieve script.
Portability, in other words. If we then change the subaddress extension
so you can specify the separator, we've in effect undone the primary
reason for having the extension.
Ned