Re: [Extra] I-D Action: draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-01.txt

[Stan Kalisch <[e-mail]>]

>> On Mar 4, 2018, at 2:41 PM, Stephan Bosch <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I just gave the point below a fresh look:
>> 
>>>>>> The other aspect of the many-many mapping is the fact that a single mailbox can
>>>>>> have multiple special use attributes. The draft supports this in the context of
>>>>>> specialuse_exists but not in the context of fileinto. I think this is fine, but
>>>>>> I want to make sure everyone is happy with this limitation, including the fact
>>>>>> that because of this you won't be able to create mailbox with fileinto with
>>>>>> multiple special use attributes.
>>>>> Good point. For sake of discussion, let's assume we allow a string list
>>>>> for the :specialuse parameter. The semantics for creation of a mailbox
>>>>> would be quite clear: all of those flags are assigned to the new
>>>>> mailbox.
>>>> Seems reasonable.
>>>> 
>>>>> But what would that mean for the mailbox lookup? Are we looking
>>>>> for a mailbox that has all of these flags, one of these flags or just
>>>>> the first flag listed?
>>>> The convention elsewhere seems pretty clearly to be for it to be an AND rather
>>>> than an OR.
>>> I agree.
>>> 
>>>>> Another question is whether mailboxes with several special-use flags are
>>>>> really that useful.
>>>> Apart from \All, which I would hope is not up to clients to set, I don't see
>>>> them as being useful. But I may be missing some use cases, which is why I 
>>>> brought it up.
>>> Ok.
>> Now my question to everyone is: do I need to change anything or is the
>> fileinto limitation acceptable?
> 
> Opinions anyone?

For the sake of argument, the only somewhat plausible scenario I can come up with is one for outgoing messages, where the sender wants messages dynamically assigned to \Sent mailboxes on based on the identities of recipients.  The sender, however, wants the retention of these messages to be ephemeral, so they also mark these mailboxes with the attribute of \Trash.



Stan