[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Comments on draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-07.txt

2008-04-19 17:21:19

On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 22:49 +0100, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Barry Leiba wrote:
2. Do we have a decision about copying Received lines?  I think we've 
reversed ourselves, and no longer want to copy them from the original 
message.  Does that mean:
a. ...the spec should be changed from MAY copy to SHOULD NOT copy or 
MUST NOT copy?  If so, which?
b. ...the spec can remain as it is, with MAY (not SHOULD nor MUST)?

Mark's example of wanting to receive notification about automatically
generated alarms makes me wonder if we shouldn't use Received as the
loop prevention mechanism after all.  it's definitely the safest method
of prevention.  the risk is that users will run into hop count limits,
but I think most messages should be well clear of that.

4. We currently say MUST NOT notify if an Auto-Submitted header field 
exists (apart from "no").  We had an inconclusive thread going with a 
suggestion to change that.  What's the consensus?  If we're to change 
it, what should we change it to, given that it's critical to our 
loop-prevention story?

I am weakly in favor of keeping the current logic. I find your argument 
about using redirect in this case to be convincing.

yes, but even if the Right Thing is to use redirect, it's quite likely
that a non-trivial amount of people will use notify instead.

   Notification message:

      Received: from by
        for <recipient(_at_)example(_dot_)org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:02 -0500
      Received: from by
        for <knitting(_at_)example(_dot_)com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 02:00:26 -0800
      Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:55 -0500
      Message-ID: <A2299BB(_dot_)FF7788(_at_)example(_dot_)org>
      Auto-Submitted: sieve-notify; 
      From: recipient(_at_)example(_dot_)org
      To: 0123456789(_at_)sms(_dot_)example(_dot_)net
      To: backup(_at_)example(_dot_)com
      Subject: From Knitting list: A new sweater

note, multiple To-headers is not allowed by 2822.

Kjetil T.