On 03/24/2010 04:21 PM, Aaron Stone wrote:
Based on a the heuristic of seeing an @ sign?
No. For a specified list of address fields. To, From, Cc will do, IMO.
2. Publish this an erratum now.
[Simplistic question to elicit details:]
When and how do 'if address' and 'if header :contains' differ?
When one address (or domain) is a substring of another. fred(_at_)example(_dot_)org
vs. alfred(_at_)example(_dot_)org, fred(_at_)foo(_dot_)com vs. fred(_at_)foo(_dot_)co(_dot_)au, foo.com vs
burblefoo.com. Subaddresses may be another case, I don't remember.
'if address :is' also breaks when several addresses are used (To:
aaron(_at_)x, foo(_at_)y) and so on.
Perhaps this table is what we publish as the erratum, explaining that
yes, it will sometimes work, but here's how it's going to break.
I don't really care. I don't make this mistake. I'd like the people
who've published drafts or even RFCs with this mistake to decide on the
proper approach, they know it better than I do.
Arnt
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve