Re: [sieve] Sieve :fcc option

Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> Tue, 25 April 2017 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Original-To: sieve@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sieve@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7928E131747 for <sieve@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 vhs2SWlqTUAw for <sieve@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (SMTP.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.105.202]) (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 2114E131569 for <sieve@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.31.24.188] (VPN-172-31-24-188.VPN.CMU.LOCAL [172.31.24.188]) (user=murch mech=PLAIN (0 bits)) by smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v3PIHQ9a018204 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:17:27 -0400
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Cc: sieve@ietf.org
References: <7357c8a0-4256-963c-3122-039053135f3b@andrew.cmu.edu> <01Q9S9O1X09A00004H@mauve.mrochek.com>
From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Message-ID: <02f52bbc-c6a9-32ed-cb96-e38b80e80337@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:17:26 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <01Q9S9O1X09A00004H@mauve.mrochek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-PMX-Version: 6.3.0.2556906, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2017.4.25.181216
X-SMTP-Spam-Clean: 8% ( HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1100_1199 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, FROM_EDU_TLD 0, IN_REP_TO 0, LEGITIMATE_SIGNS 0, MSG_THREAD 0, MULTIPLE_REAL_RCPTS 0, NO_CTA_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_HTTPS 0, REFERENCES 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __HAS_CC_HDR 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __IN_REP_TO 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_TEXT_P 0, __MIME_TEXT_P1 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MOZILLA_USER_AGENT 0, __NO_HTML_TAG_RAW 0, __PHISH_SPEAR_STRUCTURE_1 0, __REFERENCES 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NAME 0, __TO_NAME_DIFF_FROM_ACC 0, __TO_REAL_NAMES 0, __USER_AGENT 0)
X-SMTP-Spam-Score: 8%
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 128.2.105.202
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sieve/082iJ1fNGPsQrABubtR7cqzEJ2U>
Subject: Re: [sieve] Sieve :fcc option
X-BeenThere: sieve@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIEVE Working Group <sieve.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sieve>, <mailto:sieve-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sieve/>
List-Post: <mailto:sieve@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sieve-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve>, <mailto:sieve-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:17:31 -0000

Hi Ned,


On 01/17/2017 11:42 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
>> A vendor that uses Cyrus IMAP has some customers that would like to have
>> copies of outgoing Sieve-generated messages (e.g. reject, vacation)
>> stored in their Sent mailbox.  We could obviously do this with a user
>> configurable option, but I was thinking of extending Sieve to support a
>> :fcc <mailbox> option on reject, vacation and any new actions where it
>> might apply.  The option could also leverage
>> draft-bosch-sieve-special-use to do something like :fcc "\\Sent"
>
> I see no problem for notify or vacation, but there's a serious 
> semantics issue
> with reject - when you reject a message you are saying, "I didn't 
> receive" this
> message". If you implement an action where you do in fact receive the 
> message,
> albeit as a part of a DSN, you're essentially lying about what you did.


Would you object to allowing :fcc with reject only (and not with 
ereject), which sends MDNs, and presumably is post-delivery?  Or would 
you still have the same concerns?


-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University