The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Sieve Email Filtering -- Subaddress Extension '
<draft-ietf-sieve-rfc3598bis-05.txt> as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Sieve Mail Filtering Language Working
Group.
This is a revision of RFC 3598. The "subaddress" SIEVE mail filtering language
extension adds two tagged arguments to the address tests to allow for
independent testing of "user" and "detail" parts of a local part of an email
address that originates from a email system that supports "subaddressing" or
"detailed addressing" (e.g., "user+detail(_at_)example(_dot_)org"). This
extension helps
with Sieve script portability and eliminate the need for script writers to know
exact subaddressing syntax, which can vary from one email system to another.
Process and goals history of this draft.
This document is a revision of RFC 3598 and thus contains editorial
clarifications, fixes to examples, updated boilerplate and references. Based on
feedback from WG members the original wording in RFC 3598 was extended to allow
for more flexible subaddressing syntaxes, for example one implementation can
use"<user>+<details>" and another can use "<details>--<user>". RFC 3598 only
allowed for the "<user>+<details>" form.
There are already multiple implementations of RFC 3598.
The IESG contact persons are Lisa Dusseault and Ted Hardie.
A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sieve-rfc3598bis-05.txt
Technical Summary
This is a revision of RFC 3598. The "subaddress" SIEVE mail filtering language
extension adds two tagged arguments to the address tests to allow for
independent testing of "user" and "detail" parts of a local part of an email
address that originates from a email system that supports "subaddressing" or
"detailed addressing" (e.g., "user+detail(_at_)example(_dot_)org"). This
extension helps
with Sieve script portability and eliminate the need for script writers to know
exact subaddressing syntax, which can vary from one email system to another.
Working Group Summary
No significant dissent. Good working group consensus.
Protocol Quality
The SIEVE WG has reviewed the draft and discussed it at a several meetings.
Last-call (and post last-call) reviews included:
- Michael Haardt
- Kjetil Torgrim Homme
- Ned Freed
- Mark E. Mallett
Additional reviews were done by:
- Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Dave Cridland
Note to RFC Editor
As a clarification, add a para. at the end of the Introduction:
"Note that parsing the addressee of an incoming message
into 'user' and 'detail' parts is a local matter not specified
in this document."
Also please review during editing whether the use of ' and "
is optimal for clarity.