Tony Hansen wrote:
Two issues in section 6 are controversial and are denoted with "NB:".
6. Action Enclose
Usage: enclose <:subject string> <:headers string-list> string
A new SIEVE action command is defined to allow an entire message to
be enclosed as an attachment to a new message. NB: The following
statement may be controversial:
It is.
This enclose action takes precedence
over all other message modifications, such as "replace".
First of all, I am not sure what "take precedence" means. If one
replaces a part and then enclose the whole message, wouldn't you want to
enclose the modified message? Or are you trying to say that this would
be too difficult to implement and thus is not worth it?
...
The Subject: header is specified by the :subject argument. Any
headers specified by :headers are copied from the old message into
the new message. NB: The following statement may be controversial:
If not specified by :headers, Date: and From: headers should be
synthesized to reflect the current date and the user running the
SIEVE action.
(speaking as an individual contributor)
As I mentioned during the Sieve WG meeting in Prague, I think the
synthesized message should use the current date. This would allow people
to trace Sieve anomalies, as the date of the original message would be
still inside the enclose container.
I am not so sure about the From, but the proposal seems reasonable.