Re: [Jmap] [Jmap for Sieve] Binary/blob vs. Inline

[Neil Jenkins <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021, at 03:41, Hans-Joerg Happel wrote:
> => We'd argue that this process is both complex to implement plus it's 
> not particularly elegant to create a need for storing a temporary file. 

Depends how you look at it; it *is* elegant to have a single consistent method for referencing binary data. I think the answer here if you are trying to add support on a legacy system where this is difficult is to make the Sieve its own account. Then when you upload a blob to that account you know it can only be a sieve script, which should allow you to do something reasonable.

> It would therefore be good if it is possible to (alternatively?) submit 
> the script inline in the "SieveScript/set" command instead of a blobid.

Using Bron's blob extension you can create a blob in-band and then backreference it from the SieveScript/set command. But I wouldn't want to say that was the only way you could do it; that breaks the consistency of the blob handling.

> ps.: A more general question of the "write blob first" approach is 
> (beyond just uploading Sieve scripts) in how far quotas are respected. 
> If blob storage can be used for all types of data, but quota (both total 
> and max-element-size) may differ for email attachments, Sieve scripts or 
> files - how is the initial blob storage supposed to "know" which quota 
> to check against?

You just want a quota somewhat larger than the largest single file the user would be permitted to upload for any of these contexts. 

—Neil.