Re: [apps-discuss] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-appsawg-sieve-duplicate-07: (with COMMENT)

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-appsawg-sieve-duplicate-07: No Objection

> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)


> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-sieve-duplicate/



> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

> I have no objection to this extension; I think it will be helpful for
> some folks. Interestingly, I can't see ever using it myself: When I get
> duplicates from a mailing list, I *always* want the one that was sent
> from the list, with the List-* header fields on it, and *not* the one
> sent directly to me. Unfortunately, the one from the list is almost
> always going to arrive after the one sent directly to me, and the
> extension doesn't give me enough state to find the message(s) that came
> in earlier so I can decide which one to keep. But like I said, I can see
> others using this.

I note in that this particular issue was discussed at some length on the list.
Unfortunately providing a mechanism capable of doing what Pete (and others,
myself included) want is quite nontrivial given the current architecture of
email.

> As to specific comments:

>    As a side-effect, the "duplicate" test adds the message ID to an
>    internal duplicate tracking list once the Sieve execution finishes
>    successfully.

> I think this may have been mentioned in response to someone else's
> comment, but perhaps this should be:

>    As a side-effect, the "duplicate" test adds a unique identifier
>    (again, by default the contents of the Message-ID header field) to an
>    internal duplicate tracking list once the Sieve execution finishes
>    successfully.

Barry (I think) suggested text earlier that addresses this.

> And then change other occurrences of "message ID" to "unique identifier"
> elsewhere in the document as appropriate.

That's a good idea.

				Ned