[Top] [All Lists]

Re: subject: and method: / Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-sieve-notify-05.txt

2007-01-03 07:54:26


happy new year to everybody! I don't want to let this discussion just
stop without agreement.  So let's get results.

It is true that some notify-gateways support subjects, and others don't,
but a subject is a property of a general message.

IMHO: Messages in general - yes.  Notification messages - no.  A poll
should answer what the majority thinks:

Do you consider general notification messages (in the context of the
notify extension) to have a property "subject"?

[ ] yes   [ ] no

If we want a common name in all derived classes, the name shall be
defined already in the interface.

I agree to that.  Should the majority vote for subjects being proporties
of general notification messages, we absolutely should put ":subject" in
the framework.

By the way, what do you think about adding an  "expire: date", in order
to allow the mechanism to delte the notification, if it is not delivered
within a certain time. E.g. I might like to get jabber message when I
get a mail, but when on holiday, I don't want 100 notifications once I
am back. Instead the notification might wait three days to be read and
then be discarded.

I think if you want a rolling message store, the recipient store and its
associated delivery policy (e.g. a sieve filter:-) should care about that,
not the sender.

      "method:" If method: is a must to have, then it is redundant to
write "method:" when this can be avoided and I am in favour of removing

That makes two of us.  Compatibility is no problem at this point,
because the name of the extension changes anyway.