[Top] [All Lists]

Re: ManageSieve: sieve: URIs and OWNER capability

2008-11-25 23:50:51

Aaron Stone wrote:

On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 20:54 +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Alexey Melnikov wrote:

Then two other changes would make this particularly useful:
1. Allow a script name (at least in putscript) to be either a Sieve URI
or a local name.  This allows, for example, a secretary to set the
script for her boss.
We've discussed this in more details in Minneapolis and the room agreement was that ManageSieve commands should accept URIs in addition to script names.
However, I am having second thoughts on this.

1). It looks like at least the following commands would need to be updated:

But LISTSCRIPTS returns script names. Should it be changed to return URIs? I think this would break all existing clients, so I don't think that an unextended version of LISTSCRIPTS should do that.

Also, should it list *all* scripts accessible by the current user, or just personal scripts? The former seems like an extension that Dilian was talking about.

2). Considering that Sieve script names are in Unicode it would also make sense to specify IRI version of Sieve URIs. I frankly don't have experience specifying IRIs.

So my current thinking is that these changes might have undesired effects on existing clients and they also seem to require quite a bit of work. But I really want to get this document done (for Lemonade/OMA MEM among other things). So can we postpone this change till an extension?
+51% wait to work on an extension. Now that we've enumerated some more
of the issues URI's raise, I think it's likely we'll get really stuck on
working out the details.

Is there another way that we can achieve the goal of one user modifying
another user's Sieve scripts that's not too ugly and can easily become
URI in a future revision?
We already have UNAUTHENTICATE.
But using URIs would be quite elegant.

Is there a path we might agree on for merging Sieve management into IMAP
protocol, and cease work on ManageSieve at some reasonable level of
You already know my personal answer to this question ;-).