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

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> §1:
>>>   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