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

Stephan Bosch <stephan.bosch@open-xchange.com> Mon, 14 January 2019 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <stephan.bosch@open-xchange.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 4C1D11311CA; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 09:22:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=open-xchange.com
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 z4ZN3EkyowbR; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 09:22:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC0701311BB; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 09:22:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx4.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8A676A25F; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 18:22:03 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1547486523; bh=8yAUMJN84wkItzEXjI8Ql9NySSWiDvrntZcXrgwaP2c=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=jjS+c39Hxhh66PJHjGkMbSvHzhMLD70wvWk+nMj+s2eY0TIhE/AhSyB8atGk0vKPc PlGbXA5l8PLy9r2+RPvzZJ+pajwuY9OrV3X/aMQSPSRZYoGAvN2nUKa5R+zICdvq3Y nhZG6zrb5ap4Jdg0yZZye6k/1Qbu58UXWOTqXo5DgtjfvsUiB7KexQIfYPLMpcZXIM V1CK3FYUKQchCtNywspdObm0DyQOVttdexvniv8A5B95kBQsiWBr3N6DRxO/WcJ9fs 3TMjUJcVKF2nPRaMIRHlS1mP/yB3Ke4Wc9KJdBEwoKxPRKngnPkKO8xB/0DSRI7CXN zCsCdCHooMnmA==
Received: from [10.168.3.2] (alcatraz.oxoe.int [192.168.32.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 30E5A3C15C5; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 18:22:03 +0100 (CET)
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Cc: extra@ietf.org, draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use@ietf.org, yaojk@cnnic.cn, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, extra-chairs@ietf.org
References: <154708857484.5207.16946770094550744825.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <01R1TQUWRF7800004L@mauve.mrochek.com> <0d883bab-a1f2-d5b7-8586-3bc40603d6fa@nostrum.com>
From: Stephan Bosch <stephan.bosch@open-xchange.com>
Message-ID: <401a89eb-6c53-eef5-7c96-1d4312eec14b@open-xchange.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 18:22:01 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0d883bab-a1f2-d5b7-8586-3bc40603d6fa@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/iGf9_MXc_OTw-DJfDnw-BwkcfNY>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-04: (with COMMENT)
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: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 17:22:07 -0000


Op 10/01/2019 om 08:44 schreef Adam Roach:
>
>>
>>> 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.

OK, I'll make that change.

Regards,

Stephan.