Folks,
Philip recently posted draft-ietf-sieve-editheader-08.txt. Below is the
summary of changes done to address interaction between "editheader" and
"redirect". I would like to quickly confirm that the changes are fine
with everyone.
==============
Additional text in section 4 (Action deleteheader):
If an script uses the deleteheader action to remove "Received"
header fields and then performs a "redirect" action, the
implementation SHOULD NOT send the outgoing message with fewer
Received header fields than the original message. If the
implementation does not permit that for the involved script, it
is implementation defined what Received header fields are present
in such an outgoing message. The above overrides the requirement
on Received header fields in RFC-ietf-sieve-3028bis-12 section
4.2.
The following paragraph in section 5 (Interaction with Other Sieve
Extensions):
All other actions that store or send the message MUST do so with
the current set of header fields.
was replaced with:
With the exception of the special handling of "redirect" and
"Received" header fields described above, all other actions that
store or send the message MUST do so with the current set of
header fields.
Additional paragraph in section 7 (Security Considerations):
While this specification overrides the requirement that redirected
messages have more Received header fields than the message as
received, doing so removes an important mechanisms for detecting
loops and therefore should not be permitted by implementations
without due consideration, such as requiring administrative
action to enable it.