[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [sieve] New Version Notification for draft-george-sieve-vacation-time-00

2010-02-06 17:46:46
2010/2/6 Ned Freed <ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com>:
2010/2/6 Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt(_at_)gulbrandsen(_dot_)priv(_dot_)no>:
Дилян Палаузов writes:

Considering the above way of determining the From address, why cannot the

  Unless explicitly overridden with a :from parameter, the From field
  SHOULD be set to the address of the owner of the Sieve script.

be met?

Not sure when I'll get around to it, but I do mean to someday implement
group-wide and system-wide sieves, ie. sieves written by someone, 
someone else's mail. I don't understand what that SHOULD means in that

This really isn't that hard. We've had user sieve sieves, channel sieves,
system-wide sieves, domain sieves, head of household sieves, mailing list
sieves, and various other sorts. But in every case there's a fairly obvious
choice for an owner address, e.g,. for a domain sieve it's the domain
postmaster and if there isn't one of those, the system postmaster.

The tricky thing in a multiple sieve environment isn't figuring out who owns
the sieve but rather how to combine the results of multiple sieves. Jutta
Degener's long-expirted multisieve draft laid out the approach we follow, more
or less.

Event in that context, I'd still infer address based on the recipient
-- the system level script should still know whose mailbox the message
will be delivered to.

IMO that's a *really* bad idea. You're forging mail when you do this.

Hmm. Fair point. If a system sieve were to use the vacation mechanism
to report that a user has been suspended, or a mailbox is over quota,
etc., the reply ought to come from a system address. Arnt, did you
have another use case in mind? (And is this a reasonable issue to
discuss or just a rathole to discuss the depth of?)

sieve mailing list