[Top] [All Lists]

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

2005-04-05 02:10:50

Cyrus Daboo wrote:

I would like to draw your attention to the following draft:


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.