On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 01:59 -0800, Aaron Stone wrote:
On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 23:07 +0100, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
sounds to me like you want to use this to duplicate e-mail, for SarbOx
archival purposes or whatever. I don't think this is relevant for
Sieve. make the copy in your MTA so that the archival account is a
firstclass citizen as far as Sieve is concerned.
I'm sure some of my users have this in mind, and others have other
things in mind. If I provide multiscript functionality, that's one
feature for me to write and many purposes they can use it for.
I do agree that the specific case of keeping a second copy of mail is
probably better done by an MTA hook, if possible, but I don't see any
reason to prevent a Sieve script from being used for this purpose. Let's
not hang the whole discussion on this one use case, however -- given
that Ned and Tony have both said that their implementations have some
form of multiscript, I think we can assume that it is useful enough to
look into some more.
but Jutta's draft is very different, if a fileinto is taken, the next
script will not be processed (there is no longer an implicit or explicit
keep). the draft suggests that fileinto is disallowed to solve this
problem. also note that a discard can not be overruled by the user.
(I'm a bit mystified by Ned saying his system is similar to Jutta's)
from your first message again:
The special considerations I can think of are that the implicit keep
does not cross between the postmaster script and the user's script,
except in the case of a reject. That is, if the postmaster does a
fileinto, discard, keep, redirect, whatever, this affects only the
"postmaster's copy" of the message. A reject should trash the message
and cancel the user's delivery, however.
you seem to want to change the semantics of fileinto so that it does not
cancel implicit keep, unless when run as the last script. this sounds
very complex and confusing to me, and is the reason I suggest the
postmaster script works on a separate copy of the message.
hmm. what *is* the prescribed behaviour of
fileinto "INBOX.list";
keep;
I couldn't find anything definite in the draft. will this store two
copies? if so, this idiom can be used to make a copy without cancelling
the keep. how about
fileinto "INBOX";
keep;
clearly there will be only one copy due to duplicate suppression for a
single folder, but will it stay in an explicit keep state? (a discard
will still have no effect, since it only cancel an implicit keep.)
--
Kjetil T.