[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Future directions for the ManageSieve draft

2006-12-05 10:38:25

Aaron Stone wrote:

What about future extensions that also need reporting to the user
interface? I think it would be better to make it a generic extension
reporting mechanism.
All future ManageSieve extensions will have to be registered with IANA, so I don't see much point in providing generic syntax.
How many are we looking at right now?
None at the moment.

The only things on my mind are how to specify scripts for IMAP actions and
for MTA/MDA actions. Given the discussion on the recent thread about
multiscript, there are a lot of multiscript implementations! I would
certainly prefer to manage my multiscripts via ManageSieve.
Sure. This might be one potential candidate.

What else is in mind? (I'm not trying to use a crystal ball to write all
extensions into the base spec, just want to get a handle on what we're
looking at right now.)
How does this change avoid the API change you've mentioned above?
It doesn't. But it does suggest that I shouldn't have a function call
specific to the notify extensions, but rather generic to a variety of
You can still have a generic function, now that you are aware of the issue :-)

What about comparators? How are those discovered?

The same way as other Sieve extensions, in the SIEVE capability:
"IMPLEMENTATION" "Isode M-Box SIEVED server 12.0v0"
"SIEVE" "fileinto reject envelope vacation imapflags notify subaddress copy comparator-i;ascii-numeric relational spamtest refuse regex"

I haven't had time to look at all the Sieve extensions to see which ones have 

In general Sieve extensions don't need to be specially registered with ManageSieve. All Sieve extensions appear automatically in the "SIEVE" ManageSieve capability.

but I wonder if they each need to have a ManageSieve block.

See above.
But even if they do, this can be done in a separate document.

It also introduces a reference from the extension onto ManageSieve.

If registrations are done in a separate document, there is no need to have dependencies from the Sieve extension to the ManageSieve document.

Does that hold up some of the extensions and force a document approval order 
for the WG?

In general, dependencies between document delay publication (after approval), until all normatively referenced documents are published.

What about extensions with registries that are already published?

P.S. I was a bit brief in my comments, let me know if you need more detailed explanations from me.