[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Responses to comments on draft-ietf-sieve-editheader-00.txt

2005-05-03 09:47:55

On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0400, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
Hi Philip,

--On May 1, 2005 9:35:04 PM -0700 Philip Guenther 
<guenther+mtafilters(_at_)sendmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

FWIW, I miss it too.

I'm not enthralled by the idea of bringing replaceheader back into
the draft at this late date, especially given how the complexity
issues were never resolved.  I somehow suspect that the ensuing
discussion would be a cut-and-paste of the one that took place two
years ago.

Therefore, I am pushing back on these wistful thoughts.

In the interests of getting editheader finished soon, I agree with this 
approach, but I would like to hear from anyone who thinks replaceheader 
really must be present (of course we can add it as an extension at some 
later point if sufficient demand does arise later).

To me, it's "pick your evil."  One adds to the proliferation of
extensions, and separates things that really should be together.  The
other delays the standardization of 2/3 of those things.  Me, I'd vote
for the delay, especially considering that we can probably predict that
the "addheader/deleteheader" syntax is pretty well settled and it's not
much of a risk for people to start using that part of the extension.
e.g. I wonder how many implementations already include an "editheader"
extension that is being used despite not being standardized...

But I wouldn't be too upset about it going the other way, either.