gmane.ietf.mta-filters

Re: [Fwd: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto]

Cullen Jennings — 2008-12-02T17:52:41

On Dec 2, 2008, at 8:57 , Ned Freed wrote: When I said SMS, I was actually thinking the example in document where an email is sent to a SMS gateway. From the end users perspective, they got an SMS and want to know how to stop it.

Re: [Fwd: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto]

Ned Freed — 2008-12-02T16:57:15

That's exactly the problem. The case where notify mailto:, redirect, or whatever is used by an individual user in their Sieve script attached to their primary email account doesn't concern me. The case that's a problem is where it is some automated service of some sort, some kind of folder-attached script created as part of some LEMONADE setup, an autoforwarder setup, etc. Most of these thngs can and usually do have addresses associated with then for reporting problems, but they tend to be monitored sporadically if at all. And there can be some, like a folder script, where the person responsible may not be able to easily figure out where the problem is to correct it. IMO notify sms: is out of scope. But a lot of SMS goes out using email as an intermediary. That case is arguably in scope, although I suspect that the gateway effects will be impossible to overcome. Ned

Re: WGLC on draft-melnikov-sieve-imapext-metadata-04.tx

Kurt Zeilenga — 2008-12-02T14:38:21

I've reviewed metadata-06 and have no concerns. -- Kurt

Re: [Fwd: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto]

Arnt Gulbrandsen — 2008-12-02T11:39:36

Alexey Melnikov writes: Good point. I'm inclined to simply push back, then: notify-mailto includes Auto-Submitted with owner-email, that's good enough for mailto. (Btw, I like the MUST for originator identification in notify-12.) Arnt

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto]]

Alexey Melnikov — 2008-12-02T11:34:58

This message didn't get to the archive, so I am forwarding it.

Re: [Fwd: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto]

Alexey Melnikov — 2008-12-02T11:29:52

Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: SMS is out of scope for this document. (And if there is a mail-to-SMS gateway, it is responsibility of such gateway to provide correct functionality)

Re: [Fwd: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto]

Arnt Gulbrandsen — 2008-12-02T10:48:28

Michael Haardt writes: Yeah... do we have a reasonable probability that someone responsible can be reached by answering the notification, though? We do for mailto and I think we do for XMPP, but Cullen mentioned SMS, and I'm not at all sure about SMS. Arnt

Re: [Fwd: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto]

Michael Haardt — 2008-12-02T07:50:44

It is. If anything at all, it applies to any mechanism that sends messages or asks to send them, that is not just Sieve notifications, but mail, SMS services etc. in general. In discussions, we observed (Sieve) notifications have some properties of redirects and this topic is no exception. How can I protect myself from misredirected mails? I have had that problem a few times now, because some people simply can't spell their main address right, redirect to domain< at >localpart.tld and the like. One time I answered and told a member of a political part their internal reports were rather boring to me. No answer, but the mails stopped. ;) I called one admin and told him his perl installation lacked a specific module and his cron job might work better if he installed it. He took it with humour once he knew I did not break into his system, and fixed the mail address for cron mails, too. The problem does exist already, but so far answering solved it, because the messages were sent by mistake and people don't li

Re: [Fwd: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto]

Arnt Gulbrandsen — 2008-12-01T22:27:10

Isn't this really a generic issue, not specific to sieve? We can discuss how to solve it here and now, but IMO such a solution should not be be published in a document titled "Sieve So and So". My suggestion for solving it would be to include some sort of key or hash in the Auto-Submitted field which uniquely identifies the (script,user,statement) triple. Arnt

[Fwd: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto]

Alexey Melnikov — 2008-12-01T21:19:41

Re: managesieve: formats; :global; read-only; checkscript

Alexey Melnikov — 2008-11-30T17:58:52

Alexey Melnikov wrote: I've updated the draft to include your proposal. It looks like "owner" can be empty, as long as "authority" is not.

Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-01.txt (review)

Alexey Melnikov — 2008-11-30T15:17:58

Hi Stephan, Stephan Bosch wrote: Good so far. I think this text is not going to be good in presence of ihave extension. So I would rather omit or reword this part. I am not sure what you mean here. IMHO, this part is good. This text is good and might be helpful. While I generally agree with the intent of your new text, I think it demonstrates cases when saying less is actually better than saying more: a very specific text might unintentionally exclude some valid checks.

Re: evaluating tests when the result makes no sense

Arnt Gulbrandsen — 2008-11-30T10:03:19

Philip Guenther writes: OK. I had a vague intention of someday doing just that... "apply sieve script to all old mail", which would transmogrify the sieve script into a series of rather complex SQL queries and shuffle mail around from where it is to where the sieve script would have filed it. That would, among other things, make the RDBMS query planner choose evaluation order based on expected performance, and probably make the whole operation faster by a few orders of magnitude. Arnt

Re: evaluating tests when the result makes no sense

Philip Guenther — 2008-11-29T22:25:54

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: The base spec doesn't require it because it's not observable without variables. An implementation can do that only if the 'variables' extensions has not been required. The variables spec, RFC 5229, says this in section 3.2: The interpreter MUST short-circuit tests, i.e., not perform more tests than necessary to find the result. Evaluation order MUST be left to right. If a test has two or more list arguments, the implementation is free to choose which to iterate over first. Philip Guenther

Re: evaluating tests when the result makes no sense

Arnt Gulbrandsen — 2008-11-29T22:02:52

Hi, I _thought_ sieve required short-circuiting, but didn't feel courageous enough reply to Dilian's message... The only occurence of "short-curcuit" in 3028 was removed in 5228, and I didn't see anything to replace it. Further, and perhaps more seriously, I don't see any requirement of order. As far as I can see, a sieve implementation can evalue header and envelope in either order in this case: if anyof ( header ... , envelope ... ) { ... } Have I been smoking the good stuff? Arnt

Re: evaluating tests when the result makes no sense

Ned Freed — 2008-11-29T21:37:51

Yes. Not only are they permitted to do so, the variables extensions makes short-circuiting a requirement - see RFC 5229 section 3.2. I think you meant "don't evaluate". Which is exactly why the specification requires short-circuiting. It's required to be "a". This isn't a question of having an opinion, it's a question of what the specification already requires. Ned

Re: forward mail to a local user

Alexey Melnikov — 2008-11-29T18:08:21

Mester wrote: I think you want to use: redirect "localuser< at >whatever.doma.in"; I.e. there is no such Sieve action as 'forward'. Also the email address must be quoted (as suggested by Arnt).

Re: forward mail to a local user

Mester — 2008-11-29T10:08:47

Hi, I also tried it but it has the same resault. I tried localuser< at >localdomain but it sais invalid e-mail address. Attila

Re: forward mail to a local user

Arnt Gulbrandsen — 2008-11-29T09:30:55

mester< at >freemail.hu writes: Try forward "localuser< at >whatever.doma.in"; Some software does not have the concept of local users at all. Arnt

forward mail to a local user

Mester — 2008-11-29T09:12:09

Hi, I have a Debian 4.0 server with Sieve enabled Cyrus IMAP and Exim4. I have one e-mail address at my internet provider with two aliases. I use fetchmail to download the e-mail account to a local user, but I want to forward the messages arrived with one alias to another local user. I wrote a small script but it sais invalid e-mail address. How can I correct it? (sendmail localuser < ... works just fine) My script looks like this: if header :contains ["received"] "for EMAIL< at >ALIAS" { forward localuser; } Attila Mesterhazy

Re: WGLC on draft-melnikov-sieve-imapext-metadata-04.tx

Alexey Melnikov — 2008-11-27T15:17:16

Alexey Melnikov wrote: I've updated the document once (mostly editirial) based on comments from Cyrus. See for a detailed list of changes. I am planning to update the document once again to remove "_" from test names, e.g. "mailbox_exists" would become "mailboxexists". Please speak up if you have any objections.