Cyrus Daboo wrote:
I would like to draw your attention to the following draft:
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sieve-editheader-00.txt>
A little bit late comments:
>5. Interaction with Other Sieve Extensions
>
> Actions that create messages in storage or in transport to
> MTAs MUST store and send messages with the current set of
> header fields.
I am not sure I understand what is "in transport to MTAs", is this
trying to say "in MTA's queue"?
> For the purpose of weeding out duplicates, a message modified
> by addheader or deleteheader MUST be considered the same as
> the original message.
Hmm, even if the scripts replaces the Message-Id header ;-)?
> For example, in an implementation that
> obeys the constraint in [SIEVE] section 2.10.3 and does not deliver
> the same message to a folder more than once, the following
> code fragment
>
> keep;
> addheader "X-Flavor" "vanilla";
> keep;
>
> MUST only file one message. It is up to the implementation
> to pick which of the redundant "fileinto" or "keep" actions is
> executed, and which ones are ignored.
I am not sure I like this, even though I understand the motivation. When
Ned and Ken has discussed imapflags they agreed that the last keep wins
(i.e. the current flags at the time of the last keep). Consistency is a
good thing.
And the MUST at the beginning of section 5 seems to suggest the same.
Alexey