[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Sieve include, 'global scripts' and managesieve

2006-11-27 11:10:59

On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 15:38 +0100, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:

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)

I didn't read it the same way, but I'll look again to see this angle. It
doesn't make sense, so IMHO an updated draft would not specify the
confusement that you've identified.

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.

I want the postmaster to be able to do a fileinto without cancelling the
keep *for the next script*. Ned has said that he has a reject variant
that includes the semantics of my paragraph above. I am not sure if a
separate flag or action is needed in the case of reject, but I think
it's an open issue.

hmm.  what *is* the prescribed behaviour of

   fileinto "INBOX.list";

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";

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.)

The system script would have some other set of mailboxes -- owned by the
system user. As Nigel mentions, he uses the filesystem for his system
scripts. The system script runs as the postmaster user. So this also
raises a question about how to do envelope matching, for example, with
Relational which prohibits matching against other people's envelopes to
discover who else has received the message.