[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-editheader-00.txt

2005-03-28 06:46:28


A two week working group last call of this document starts today and ends 
on 28th March 2005 at 6 pm EST.

Please review this document and send issues to the list or direct to the 

Is it worth making it explicit that if deleteheader can't find any matching 
headers then this isn't an error?

I'm sad that we have to say this:

   Actions that create messages in storage or in transport to
   MTAs MUST store and send messages with the current set of
   header fields.

Certainly it'll break my implementation, as I package up all redirects and 
fileintos and do them (or cancel them) all in a batch at the end.  I think the 
above paragraph means that if I allow editheader (which I do) then I'll have to 
change this or more likely not obey the standard until someone complains.  The 
feature it gains me seems to be pretty marginal, yet costly to add, so I 
suspect my implementation will never change.

I think we are saying that editheader does not cancel the implict keep 
(certainly this makes sense), but I don't think we've been very clear about it. 
 I liked the clarity of what was said in the vacation draft: "Vacation does not 
affect Sieve's implicit keep action."