Re: [Extra] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-04: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 10 January 2019 07:44 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFB9A13118B; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 23:44:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.68
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8hxGWDrtuyOH; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 23:44:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88A2C13118A; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 23:44:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Svantevit.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x0A7iClZ072714 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 10 Jan 2019 01:44:13 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1547106254; bh=t7WNpn1sfG+Fkj84YkT+p1DEk3UCUFztmuWS7BCL9z0=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=utfuIviAYYqCcZ/WnCw/w5QfyuZTwuez4JJ4+hqfwIE1klesdBvU9M2EFE76tabwW GVMTBZc81Pm6DE0XSExc/S4DG6FloCorQMHEPNYc6b3JqMI44SczSxaPLXYkMEs3rY FZl0Zm7cPzfdFdF72tzytO+mldpKcp3u4mZq32XQ=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.roach.at
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, extra@ietf.org, draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use@ietf.org, yaojk@cnnic.cn, extra-chairs@ietf.org
References: <154708857484.5207.16946770094550744825.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01R1TQUWRF7800004L@mauve.mrochek.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <0d883bab-a1f2-d5b7-8586-3bc40603d6fa@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 01:44:06 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <01R1TQUWRF7800004L@mauve.mrochek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/HZ0BRuSqCzIEL-Li-z2Rv8oeAXc>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <extra.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/extra/>
List-Post: <mailto:extra@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 07:44:23 -0000

>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ยง1:
>>>   It also adds
>>>   the ability to file messages into an anonymous personal mailbox that
>>>   has a particular special-use attribute assigned using a ":specialuse"
>>>   argument for the "fileinto" command [SIEVE].
>> I was perplexed by the use of "anonymous" (here and elsewhere in the document),
>> expecting it to be a term of art defined in some other RFC. I poked around at
>> the plausible references and didn't find anything.
>> After reading the rest of the document, I *think* the notion is that you're
>> talking about a mailbox that is identified by its special-use attribute rather
>> than its name.
> Identified in the script. It does have a name.


Right. Sorry, English is terribly imprecise for this kind of thing. I 
meant it in the sense of "he who shall not be named," rather than "thing 
without a name," but of course your interpretation is the obvious one. 
Now that you've pointed that out, I agree that this isn't a significant 
improvement.


>
>> If that's the intention, it might be clearer to simply say
>> "unnamed;" or, barring that, perhaps clarify in the Introduction what is meant
>> by "anonymous."
> I'm not wild about anonymous but unnamed doesn't seem like an improvement to
> me. The mailbox does have a name and this kind of makes it sound like it
> doesn't.
>
> Maybe something like "mailbox identified only by" or something similar?


That would certainly work, and it's much clearer.

/a