Re: [Jmap] I-D Action: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-02.txt

Ned Freed <> Thu, 19 November 2020 13:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CF503A136C for <>; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 05:40:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vT5Xqpfq0nyg for <>; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 05:40:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 795723A1115 for <>; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 05:39:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <> for; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 05:34:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=201712; t=1605792874; bh=Ixhjkv+vDGeUhFz7X5DlIGhVEosCRQQQELfouPkvs9g=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=AmB0rripS4+6yiTVmDEsj0Nvr6iO5f4AEFif942N2cklGkgPP0dcWSOavLHc1pK+D NIFCnBZgbIktRNeJF8GIpMEa6YoIGxmHEHD2e6stGvVYzhUZJPAIpxqbELEs05sn3z 07t2sdczN+HgBKorxTH+g98UKjMRHp4DT9rdA2Us=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <>; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 05:34:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 05:17:01 -0800
From: Ned Freed <>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 19 Nov 2020 14:01:34 +0100" <>
References: <> <>
To: Stephan Bosch <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Jmap] I-D Action: draft-ietf-jmap-sieve-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: JSON Message Access Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 13:40:24 -0000

I think there's a more fundamental question we need to ask here: Is the
managesieve model the right one for handling sieves in JMAP?

By "managesieve model" I'm referring to the underlying data model where
there are multiple named sieves and one active sieve.

My specific concern is interoperability between clients that fully support this
model and clients that don't. A client that doesn't want to offer the ability
to have multiple sieves is likely going to just present the active script and
let you mess with it. Things can get interesting if another client that does
support multiple scripts comes along and switches to another script.

Of course there are ways of handling this, some requiring protocol/server
changes and others requiring extra vigilance on the part of clients. But before
we start exploring those - and given the ratio of single script to multiscript
clients I've seen I don't really think we have a choice - I think we need to
ask if multiscript facilities are something we want.


P.S. I speak as someone who has implemented managesieve server side without any
real difficulty, and forsee no difficulty doing the same in JMAP. This is all
about client needs.