[Extra] Design of a new Sieve action to process iMIP messages
Ken Murchison <murch@fastmail.com> Wed, 22 September 2021 12:27 UTC
Return-Path: <murch@fastmail.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 D6BB03A1CF2
for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 05:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
header.d=fastmail.com header.b=aZyyRCFB;
dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=S8QpEiqG
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 ynbAU2NBNX6W for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Wed, 22 Sep 2021 05:27:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com
[66.111.4.28])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63C253A1CED
for <extra@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 05:27:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46])
by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 705015C0174
for <extra@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 08:27:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162])
by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 22 Sep 2021 08:27:36 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.com; h=
to:from:subject:message-id:date:mime-version:content-type; s=
fm1; bh=unVqBZzJb7QHOwuYivpEV7tIFXISMFmFx5j946DUue0=; b=aZyyRCFB
C/VPxcgBdxGTab+3s9b5vzUXWmvck0BtUGh/VUiqrCr2gs6O4YLpTivXo0fca2/w
5sxG52Qpjt6APExukkOyrObP19s3NDjFXx95CntIDUgE8l3RMmiFyl3fTvZQP1p5
nnOMLleFfwkhD75xKOX2y2xIK168oO566i78aWK9NyIWKA4tnw7xwGJIN333wa3Q
uFW/xlvTLm3jONgoWp7zQAM+ndTMcaj31qdmIkRZcqypqSuI4OmgdNsLqstZIBqe
7WpzFUwqVUZ7NCczto9KH3jPt0rkiDjG8wseTNZ+q7xkozssbTCyIV4WJbMfJ8wA
CirdaM71274lRg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:message-id
:mime-version:subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender
:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=unVqBZzJb7QHOwuYivpEV7tIFXISM
FmFx5j946DUue0=; b=S8QpEiqGE3J+/23X6aVwKQg/s2+9AQHIBQoD5B7/jGiQU
xWnc9uyCOke+7Bc3VGZlRMyeHroBZQgMz7rS+yAwdBklp2bDn6vSf3JYWLZ3Ybrk
CfLTK1XVq0MMxz/l7SJWh1giic9bmzHwGAVsRo7ApdUB/n9AdYkzPXa/whVc0U4g
Ts3V9j5jb8eZ1VFJZB2IB2NqNIMhi8SaescquIkdPM3XPO2UI9G+ofrl1EmTm5kJ
It19K1HMwsTtC568bXVKoba8w0LXngVPZHkwTlfxxUzbvtPcjY59hyDof+HAWIZF
1wcU6xWt4P2g8XCELoMZ0SexoDsB4hOm+MsQQfcTw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:OCFLYVH4_hrXeEbvzs8c9SVUdIRj8d3EP81T1ajc6plOm8ocaV889A>
<xme:OCFLYaWcSgIm8fEP40_V2Hz8YW050U16QB4CeWumT8Y0w_RtKhVAEFijKgbHikPl7
F7ZMotWsRoCNw>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:OCFLYXJI_Xdjf7cxuumasQX6z1HWNLlSnI5UcGJtWsg_QjMyvcOdDtq3P3assxnk0RnXQ25cT42Zu0jB562YI1fQAefGTlRMw9S_ZQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrudeijedgheduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf
fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen
uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefvhffukffffgggtgesrgdtreertd
efjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvnhcuofhurhgthhhishhonhcuoehmuhhrtghhsehfrghsthhm
rghilhdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepjeegleehtdegvefgtdevtdelvedvve
fffffhjeelleeffeffjefffeelhfeukefhnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfr
rghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhurhgthhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:OCFLYbGw6Y-zn3wdChMassIjLw8MVnHUU6H1qbNvYtBlW7Kf3WlChw>
<xmx:OCFLYbUFr9gVbQTiVSl139NI9nwdYYGU3L4Ygh0VRzJFtSq6I9SELg>
<xmx:OCFLYWOoaDvh5vgf0PYWc8Qi2HO008RXPMWiJ8Y7VPCNFf3R6AEX6Q>
<xmx:OCFLYSDfhTGZwXJhpmv10u7NjYfd9ylRvOoC_jyuQWORbL5zjWaQqw>
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for
<extra@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 08:27:36 -0400 (EDT)
To: extra@ietf.org
From: Ken Murchison <murch@fastmail.com>
Message-ID: <2304e1e5-9cd2-c913-e0bf-ba7a1218db0e@fastmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 08:27:35 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------3CBE00D6D7B8EEE066B5C391"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/foDHIdf9z73DY6IiZghBQDMVP_8>
Subject: [Extra] Design of a new Sieve action to process iMIP messages
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: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:27:43 -0000
All,
We (Fastmail) are in the process of designing and implementing a new
Sieve action which will process iMIP messages and add/update resources
on a CalDAV calendar. The main issue that I'm facing is that a user may
want to have additional actions be executed depending on whether the
'processimip' action [un]successfully updates the calendar (E.g., add
flags to and/or fileinto the email message into different mailbox).
Neither RFC 5528 nor any extension that I'm aware of defines a mechanism
for determining whether an action was successful. Failure of some
actions, such as fileinto cause script execution to stop. Failure of
others such as vacation/notify are usually ignored.
I have come up with 3 ways to solve this issue for the new 'processimip'
action, in order of preference:
1. Have 'processimip' set a variable with a return code/status. This
variable can then be checked with a 'string' test. There is
precedent for an action setting a variable with the 'extracttext'
action.
2. Make 'processimip' a test rather than an action. This would be the
first test that I'm aware of with side-effects (other than setting
match variables).
3. Add optional :flags and :mailbox (and :mailboxid, :specialuse) args
to 'processimip' which are only used if the action is successful and
are used to execute an implicit 'fileinto'. This is very ugly
IMHO. I'd prefer that an explicit 'fileinto' action be used.
What do others think? Any different/better design ideas?
--
Kenneth Murchison
Senior Software Developer
Fastmail US LLC
- [Extra] Design of a new Sieve action to process i… Ken Murchison
- Re: [Extra] Design of a new Sieve action to proce… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Extra] Design of a new Sieve action to proce… Ken Murchison
- Re: [Extra] Design of a new Sieve action to proce… Ned Freed
- Re: [Extra] Design of a new Sieve action to proce… Ken Murchison