[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [sieve] On "reject" and :fcc

2017-01-17 17:17:20
I wasn't on the list until just now, but it's one of my users who requested 
:fcc or similar.

A vendor that uses Cyrus IMAP has some customers that would like to have
copies of outgoing Sieve-generated messages (e.g. reject, vacation)
stored in their Sent mailbox.  We could obviously do this with a user
configurable option, but I was thinking of extending Sieve to support a
:fcc <mailbox> option on reject, vacation and any new actions where it
might apply.  The option could also leverage
draft-bosch-sieve-special-use to do something like :fcc "\\Sent"

I see no problem for notify or vacation, but there's a serious semantics 
with reject - when you reject a message you are saying, "I didn't receive" 
message". If you implement an action where you do in fact receive the 
albeit as a part of a DSN, you're essentially lying about what you did.

Accurate information about who actually received what is especially 
in environments with compliance archiving requirements. I don't look 
forward to
explaining how a reject ended up being a keep.


So don't lie if you don't want to lie.

No, you don't lie because you care about user experience, not violating
the least astonishment principle, etc.

I see things the other way around, if you want to
reject something then you want to reject it, but you might also want to keep 
a copy
of every email that's been sent out of the system on your behalf.

Then keep a record of the rejection for the user, as opposed to keeping a copy
of the message that was rejected. Indeed, if you're going to keep track
of all rejections you have to allow for this in order to deal with
rejections that occur before the message transferred.

If your environment has compliance archiving requirements, then don't let 
users do
that.  If you're not allowed to keep copies of reject emails, then don't keep 
a copy of

It's quite possible to set up an environment where every email going out of 
the organisation
gets archived completely independent of the sieve engine, in which case you'd 
still be keeping
copies of outbound rejects.  Not even allowing this in sieve doesn't change 
the fact that people
might want to lie and not everybody has compliance archiving requirements.

You're now conflating all sorts of different things: Informing users of
rejections as opposed to revealing message content, outgoing rejections, which
have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand, and retaining messages
at the system level, which again has nothing to do with what's being
proposed here.

The issue here is simple: The :fcc mechanism on reject provides a way for your
*users* to lie to other *users* and say that they haven't received a message
when in fact they have. If you don't see how this can become extremely
problematic, I'm afraid there's no point in further discussion.


sieve mailing list

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