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

Ned Freed <> Thu, 10 January 2019 07:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD63913116E; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 23:31:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.207
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.207 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MrtylfFsMDYn; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 23:31:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1980129A87; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 23:31:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <>; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 23:28:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=201712; t=1547105310; bh=FWsuogUrDRLC6j1nO0zHtqWD5KvRYGfkEXkGOvpnUYk=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=aEtyngNXODJT+qvpGw5OUWzUBK+BWxyPnGRIsdDagB5UJQ7+VBSnQiMHqmDxfmsFP Sekr0DGaMAsvCESr9NcBBrklb+vvrkRmOWNpUiIE5aP6eZHRJjNDWVyZv8iYTy29pa Ol2u2ISNb5pFdL6PcPgng8uVj1Yoyy3o8HMug+Hs=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <>; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 23:28:25 -0800 (PST)
Cc: The IESG <>,,,,
Message-id: <>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 23:23:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Ned Freed <>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 09 Jan 2019 18:49:34 -0800" <>
References: <>
To: Adam Roach <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-04: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 07:31:32 -0000

> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-04: Yes

> 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
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Thanks to everyone who worked on this document. I have two minor suggestions for
> improvement.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

> 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.

> 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

Maybe something like "mailbox identified only by" or something similar?

> (Yes, I get that "unnamed" and "anonymous" are technically synonyms, but
> "anonymous" typically is used as a term of art corresponding to personal
> anonymity in the context of communications, making its use confusing in this
> context without any additional explanation)

Also true.