ietf-mta-filters
[Top] [All Lists]

comments on draft-freed-sieve-notary

2007-04-02 14:09:53


I found the extension name to be relatively obscure, having completely forgotten that the DSN work came from the notary WG. "smtp-dsn" would have been more obvious to me, but perhaps that implies a restriction to SMTP that doesn't exist. (Is there a reasonable X.400 mapping for these envelope values?)

It should be stated that any ADDRESS-PART argument is ignored when matching against the 'notify' or 'ret' envelope parts. I suggest that it _not_ be ignored for 'envid' due to RFC 3885's tightening of the envid syntax when message tracking is used.

(Hurm. RFC 3885's seems at least mildly broken, as it apparently implies that an "@" is not the same as its xtext encoded version.)


Speaking of RFC 3885, would it be reasonable to have this "notary" extension also define a "mtrk" envelope-part given how MTRK is tied to the notary parameters? Or should that be a different capability?

    mtrk  Match the message tracking, or MTRK, value given in the
        SMTP MAIL FROM command.  The syntax and semantics of the MTRK
        parameter are defined in RFC 3885 [RFC3885] section 3.1.

(It may make sense to do MTRK in a separate extension simply because of its lower maturity level and deployment compared to DSN.)


An example of how to test whether 'notify' contained a specific set of values would help clarify the behavior. Perhaps something like:

        # Check whether only FAILURE notifications were requested
        if allof ( envelope "notify" "FAILURE",
                   envelope :comparator "i;ascii-numeric" :count "eq"
                            "notify" "1"
                 )
        {
                # do whatever
        }



This extension provides a means to test the notary values on incoming messages, but not set them on messages sent via 'redirect'. Has anyone played with extensions for setting SMTP parameters on outgoing messages in sieve?


Philip Guenther

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>