On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 19:14 +0200, Michael Haardt wrote:
Did I say that I had only one open issue recently? Here are my remaining
notes from the Exim documentation:
----------
Semantics Of ":mime"
The draft does not specify how strings using MIME entities are used
to compose messages. As a result, different implementations generate
different mails. The Exim Sieve implementation splits the reason into
header and body. It adds the header to the mail header and uses the body
as mail body. Be aware, that other imlementations compose a multipart
structure with the reason as only part. Both conform to the specification
(or lack thereof).
----------
If everybody likes things that way, how about stating in the draft, that
it is up to the implementation how to compose the message?
I don't see why, really. it's implicit that an implementation is free
to choose how to implement it, as long as the result is functionally
identical.
(your method seems easiest and more natural. with the alternative you
need to choose a boundary string for the multipart, and therefore you
must scan the reason string to avoid the potential collision.)
----------
Interaction With Other Sieve Elements
The draft describes the interaction with vacation, discard, keep,
fileinto and redirect. It MUST describe compatibility with other
actions, but doesn't. In this implementation, vacation is compatible
with any other action.
----------
I suggest to add: Vacation should be compatible with any other action.
(not SHOULD). That tells the direction for authors of new extensions.
that's true for every extension, no one will break compatibility
needlessly. I don't think adding such text is necessary.
--
Kjetil T.