Re: [Extra] draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc

[Ken Murchison <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ned,


On 03/24/2018 10:43 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
>> At the EXTRA session this week, Alexey questioned whether the way I
>> integrated fileinto tagged arguments with :fcc was legal.  It turns out
>> that Alexey is correct, and the current implementation breaks a SHOULD
>> NOT in Section 2.6.2 of RFC5228:
>
>> "Tagged arguments SHOULD NOT take tagged arguments as arguments."
>
>> So, assuming we want to continue to allow options like :flags and
>> :special-use to be used with :fcc (and I think we should if possible),
>> we need to find another way to do this.
>
> I missed the fact that you had made FCC-OPTIONS a positional parameter
> inside of :fcc. While I can certainly implement this, I agree that it's
> a bad idea. And more to the point, unnecessary since there are no
> cases where one of these arguments has a different meaning outside
> of this context. (And if there were such cases... ick.)

I only did that so that the parser would know ahead of time to expect 
the fileinto options.  Instead, the parser will have to expect those 
options to occur anywhere, possibly prior to parsing :fcc, and validate 
the command at the end.


>> Do we allow options like :flags to float anywhere in the command and
>> simply ignore them if :fcc isn't included? E.g.
>
> Or better still, require :fcc to be present in order to use :flags or
> whatever.

Right.  And if they are used without :fcc, its a parse error.

I will make the necessary changes and post a new draft.

-- 
Ken Murchison
Cyrus Development Team
FastMail US LLC