Re: [Extra] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 11 January 2019 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 9D900127AC2 for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 10:08:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.679
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 MSs3L_bqJJ73 for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 10:07:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87EDB1277CC for <extra@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 10:07:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.45] (cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x0BI7urK007607 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 11 Jan 2019 12:07:57 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1547230078; bh=Zt1+XbDqh9augCwECRinM4LP4fSXoXXaD9P38AHLV5U=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=Z89lEHhZaxkz9O+X33pFQdviJWzH1A95v+n5LFLCcCshd1oEirq+j/oN39K5AWzcY lOvCcvMq5dIteKxq7DD+0bTx+qBwwwGJ6VOeGLaAG18vK5nplo5pvskTepz70zB2xp XqHsXy+VyhR+uXOVO009IuZf2C6VP2xVsf+fSOZ0=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106] claimed to be [10.0.1.45]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <81499421-5F6D-4B2A-96EF-4352E1C6BC44@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AD3CFEA3-F119-49CB-A78B-6147489A5CC9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 12:07:55 -0600
In-Reply-To: <01R1VMFXYJC400004L@mauve.mrochek.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc@ietf.org, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, extra@ietf.org, yaojk@cnnic.cn, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, extra-chairs@ietf.org
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
References: <154707068927.5028.9965727374137648132.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <553C69A0-9D9F-45F7-9586-B0BD71DF2661@fastmail.fm> <9DF727DF-068E-437D-B8E1-D3A71A087DE3@nostrum.com> <01R1UIX3NK2M00004L@mauve.mrochek.com> <47A55584-25D5-409A-B5D0-884A9F8FAA30@nostrum.com> <01R1VMFXYJC400004L@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/rnI-_qsxeTGZB5sWOpgFu7zK4vI>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc-08: (with DISCUSS and 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: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 18:08:00 -0000


> On Jan 11, 2019, at 9:30 AM, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>; wrote:
> 
>> I think it’s likely that I agree; which text that Alexey suggested do you
>> refer to? If it’s down to mentioning shared mailboxes and moving on, I’m
>> fine with it at this point.
> 
> See:
> 
>  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/QcBHaAziCwHJJ4gvbO2XXB8IPB8 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/QcBHaAziCwHJJ4gvbO2XXB8IPB8>
> 
> The proposal is to cover the shared folder issue as it relates to these sorts
> of messages as well as the possibility of quota issues.
> 

I am fine with that proposal. I will clear my DISCUSS.

Ben.