Re: [Extra] AD review of draft-ietf-extra-sieve-mailboxid-03

[Ken Murchison <[e-mail]>]

On 9/4/20 2:51 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Thanks for the quick reply, Alexey.
>
>>>      The server advertises the capability "mailboxid"
>>>
>>> How are sieve capabilities advertised?
>> The text from the draft you quoted is a bit misleading. Scripts specify
>> that they require an extension by listing it in "require". Server can
>> advertise supported Sieve extensions through ManageSieve or JMAP Sieve
>> extension, but this is outside the scope of this draft.
> Yes, exactly.  I'm asking that the text be changed, either to not talk
> about the capability being advertised or saying just a few more words
> to make the situation clearer.
>
>>> — Section 4 —
>>>
>>> Two things here:
>>>
>>> 1. I think this is underspecified.  It’s not clear what the behaviour
>>> is when the specified mailboxid does exist, but matches a mailbox with
>>> a different name that what’s specified.  If I say:
>>>
>>>      fileinto :mailboxid “12” “xyzzy”
>>>
>>> …and there’s a mailbox named “xyzzy” with mailboxid 4, and a mailbox
>>> named “plugh” with mailboxid 12, what happens?  It needs to be
>>> explicitly clear.
>> I thought Section 4 is quite clear that :mailboxid takes precedence if
>> there is a mailbox with the correspond id. So in your case it is mailbox
>> with name “plugh”.
> I don't think it's clear, and would like to see the text be clearer.
> That should be easy to fix.
>
>>> 2. Did the working group consider not requiring the mailbox name at
>>> all, if the mailboxid is specified?  So I could say:
>>>
>>>      fileinto :mailboxid “12”
>>>
>>> …and in the example above it would behave as though I’d said:
>>>
>>>      fileinto :mailboxid “12” “plugh”
>>>
>>> I’m not sure that it ever makes sense to specify both the mailbox name
>>> and the mailboxid.
>> RFC 5228 (basic Sieve) requires mailbox name parameter to be present.
> Sure, but it could be "" (so, fileinto :mailboxid “12” "").
>
> Alternatively, ":mailboxid" could take no argument, but would instead
> change the meaning of the required string from being a mailbox name to
> being a mailboxid.  Of course, that would mean you couldn't specify
> both name and id on the same command, so that might not work.  What's
> the use case for including both?  It still seems to me that one would
> want one or the other, but why both?


The behavior of :mailboxid is similar to that of :specialuse. You want 
the name argument because its the fallback mailbox in case no mailbox 
with the given id can be found.


-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Senior Software Developer
Fastmail US LLC