On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 06:25:06PM -0700, Ned Freed wrote:
Just as one example, any address with a mailbox name beginning 'jhutz+' or
'jhutz=' and a domain ending in 'cmu.edu' is is probably mine, and if I
used vacation, I'd certainly want it to treat mail sent to any such address
as belonging to me, regardless of the specific host the mail went to or
what, if anything, occurs after the plus. I'd want that even if the mail
server weren't also at CMU, if I ever decided to forward my CMU mail
off-site. One way to deal with this sort of problem would be to allow a
match type and comparator to be specified for the addresses.
This sort of thing really needs to be up to the implementation, and the
current
specification specifically allows this (section 3.5 list item 1) You really
don't want to have to require that every user specify complex matching
criteria
in every vacation action they write.
I agree. If your address is really jhutz+*(_at_)*(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu, that
pattern
should be used by vacation, too, without you having to specify it.
In fact it is probably jhutz+*(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu as well and a number different
patterns, if all you have are Sieve wildcard patterns. Users will mostly
fail to get that right. I don't want to think about sites with caseful
local parts.
But perhaps section 3.5 is not clear enough:
Implementations are
assumed to know the user's email address, but users may have
additional addresses beyond the control of the local mail system.
Ned: Do you refer to that sentence? If so, how about:
Implementations are
assumed to know the user's email address, including aliases and
subaddresses, but users may have additional addresses beyond the
control of the local mail system.
Michael