Dave Cridland writes:
On Fri Mar 24 00:25:37 2006, Ken Murchison wrote:
I was tasked at Tuesday's Sieve WG meeting with trying to make the
language in the subaddress draft even more general than it currently
is, but as Philip noted in another thread, doing so makes it very
difficult to describe when :detail is present/empty/not present. I
have not found a way to describe these states without relying on
some type of 'delimiter' or 'separator'.
Consider this a plea for some suggested text.
I think much of Ken's problem here is that he's trying to build a
standard method for doing something with unstandardized local part
formats.
Agreed.
Perhaps what's actually needed is some kind of informational document
describing various mechanisms that exist for subaddressing and
similar local-part "encodings", and then using the subaddress Sieve
extension to access those encodings.
Maybe. But that paragraph brings forth RFC 1925 in my mind.
Specifically, 6a, but also 6, 7, 7a and 8.
How about just specifying that
a) this extension is limited to subaddresses which use separators,
b) a future extension may lift that restriction, and
c) the separator may consist of one character, of several characters or
even of a zero-width boundary such as e.g. "letter on one side,
nonletter on the other"?
Arnt
(who thinks 1925 should be on the standards track)