On Fri Mar 24 13:43:29 2006, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
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.
You have a sound point, although my premise for moving the definition
to a distinct document was primarily because it's useful on its own,
see (5).
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"?
I'm mildly concerned you're infringing on (9) and (10), but if we're
going to dump any idea of addressing subaddresses further [if you can
follow that] then I'd like to canvas implementors on what they think
a subaddress is, whether it sometimes/usually fits this description,
and whether we might as well chop it further. (Say, by insisting on a
'+' postfix ).
FWIW, trying to bend in VERP and similar mechanisms strikes me as (5).
Arnt
(who thinks 1925 should be on the standards track)
I think you could advance it straight to Draft status on the basis of
multiple independent interoperable implementations, at least.
Dave.
--
You see things; and you say "Why?"
But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw