(Sorry to weigh in so late.)
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:37:11PM +0200, Michael Haardt wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 11:28:20AM +0100, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
I would like to draw your attention to the following draft:
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sieve-3431bis-01.txt>
Am I right in thinking that using "i;octet", the left side " B " is
equal to "B" (white space is stripped from the left side), but "B"
is not equal to " B " (white space is not stripped from the right side)?
That's reasonable for values that are derived from message elements, I
would want a header field value or an address being tested to be
stripped of its leading spaces. But that section also defines the left
side of a comparison as always being "from the message" which is hard to
apply to the "string" verb from the variables extension.
Speaking of which, 3.1 says:
Leading and trailing white space MUST be removed from the value of
the message for the comparison. White space is defined as
SP / HTAB / CRLF
A value from the message is considered the left side of the relation.
The first sentence says "the value of the message" where it probably
means to say "the value from the message" or "a value from the message" .
Some other random comments, some significant, some not..
Some of the examples use domain names like "example.com.invalid" --
why not just "example.com" ? Not that I expect to ever see a ".invalid"
TLD but example.tld is supposed to be for examples.
Also, the examples should use "elsif" rather than "elseif".
Some of the examples refer to a test as "being" true or false, and
others refer to the test as "returning" true or false. I think
"returning" is a bad word, and would prefer e.g. "evaluates to" .
Should the "extended example" (section 5) require "fileinto" ?
The last "allof" in the extended example is missing a closing paren.
mm