Re: managesieve: formats; :global; read-only; checkscript
Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Sun, 30 November 2008 18:07 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-sieve-archive-Aet6aiqu@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-sieve-archive-Aet6aiqu@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FDF828C169 for <ietfarch-sieve-archive-Aet6aiqu@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:07:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.364
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.364 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yTrZB+BeSRmX for <ietfarch-sieve-archive-Aet6aiqu@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:07:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (properopus-pt.tunnel.tserv3.fmt2.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f04:392::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D77F028C167 for <sieve-archive-Aet6aiqu@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:07:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAUHxpPs044149 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:59:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAUHxpML044148; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:59:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAUHxoGk044142 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:59:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com)
Received: from [172.16.2.119] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <STLUkQBa-wqH@rufus.isode.com>; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:59:47 +0000
Message-ID: <4932D45C.2050203@isode.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:58:52 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Дилян Палаузов <Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org>
CC: IETF Sieve WG <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>
Subject: Re: managesieve: formats; :global; read-only; checkscript
References: <49271D09.90408@aegee.org> <492C63F2.9030509@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <492C63F2.9030509@isode.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Hi ÐилÑн, > > ÐилÑн ÐалаÑзов wrote: > >> *:GLOBAL* Provided that draft-daboo-sieve-include is not dead, and >> users can "include :global" it would be useful to provide >> managesieve-possibilities to see how the global scripts are written. >> My suggestion is to let the user see the global scripts, when the >> authorization ID is the empty string. In terms of the Sieve URL >> Scheme, the global scripts could be accessible when owner = '\0'. I >> mean when >> sieveurl-script = "sieve://" [ authority ] "/" >> [owner "/"] scriptname >> has the form >> sieveurl-script = "sieve://" [ authority ] "//" scriptname >> then requested are the global scripts. > > While I think having a standardized way of accessing global scripts > would be a good idea, I am not convinced that the empty string is > going to be Ok. > This might have some weird side effects on URI parsers (but I am not > sure). I've updated the draft to include your proposal. It looks like "owner" can be empty, as long as "authority" is not. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAUHxxVi044163 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:59:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAUHxxPH044162; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:59:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [64.170.98.32]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAUHxwUY044156 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:59:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from root@core3.amsl.com) Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 8061E28C141; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:00:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-02.txt Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20081130180001.8061E28C141@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:00:01 -0800 (PST) Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Sieve Mail Filtering Language Working Group of the IETF. Title : A Protocol for Remotely Managing Sieve Scripts Author(s) : A. Melnikov, T. Martin Filename : draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-02.txt Pages : 49 Date : 2008-11-30 Sieve scripts allow users to filter incoming email. Message stores are commonly sealed servers so users cannot log into them, yet users must be able to update their scripts on them. This document describes a protocol "ManageSieve" for securely managing Sieve scripts on a remote server. This protocol allows a user to have multiple scripts, and also alerts a user to syntactically flawed scripts. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-11-30095614.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAUHxpPs044149 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:59:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAUHxpML044148; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:59:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAUHxoGk044142 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:59:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.2.119] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <STLUkQBa-wqH@rufus.isode.com>; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:59:47 +0000 Message-ID: <4932D45C.2050203@isode.com> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:58:52 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: =?UTF-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= <Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org> CC: IETF Sieve WG <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: managesieve: formats; :global; read-only; checkscript References: <49271D09.90408@aegee.org> <492C63F2.9030509@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <492C63F2.9030509@isode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Hi ÐилÑн, > > ÐилÑн ÐалаÑзов wrote: > >> *:GLOBAL* Provided that draft-daboo-sieve-include is not dead, and >> users can "include :global" it would be useful to provide >> managesieve-possibilities to see how the global scripts are written. >> My suggestion is to let the user see the global scripts, when the >> authorization ID is the empty string. In terms of the Sieve URL >> Scheme, the global scripts could be accessible when owner = '\0'. I >> mean when >> sieveurl-script = "sieve://" [ authority ] "/" >> [owner "/"] scriptname >> has the form >> sieveurl-script = "sieve://" [ authority ] "//" scriptname >> then requested are the global scripts. > > While I think having a standardized way of accessing global scripts > would be a good idea, I am not convinced that the empty string is > going to be Ok. > This might have some weird side effects on URI parsers (but I am not > sure). I've updated the draft to include your proposal. It looks like "owner" can be empty, as long as "authority" is not. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAUFIxhv038053 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sun, 30 Nov 2008 08:18:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAUFIxfG038052; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 08:18:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAUFIllU038043 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 08:18:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.2.119] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <STKu0wBa-4iu@rufus.isode.com>; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:18:44 +0000 Message-ID: <4932AEA6.3090903@isode.com> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:17:58 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl> CC: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-01.txt (review) References: <490CA45B.7080001@isode.com> <4912D0BC.4000008@rename-it.nl> <49131581.6050903@isode.com> <49228E18.9060808@rename-it.nl> In-Reply-To: <49228E18.9060808@rename-it.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Hi Stephan, Stephan Bosch wrote: > Alexey Melnikov wrote: > >> Hi Stephan, >> Thank you for your review. >> >> I am quickly answering easy comments/questions and will followup on >> the rest later on. > >>> 2.6: >>> >>> - Clarify what is meant by syntax checking. In the strictest sense >>> it could mean that any script that complies with the basic grammar >>> of the Sieve language would pass. Command syntax, i.e. which >>> arguments are required/allowed, would then be ignored. Also, >>> wouldn't it be helpful/useful/desirable to include contextual checks >>> here as well? E.g. unknown/invalid comparators etc. >> >> IMHO, invalid/unknown comparator would be covered by syntactic checks. >> >>> I first encountered this distinction when discussing the ihave >>> extension to the Sieve language. I implicitly interpreted this >>> requirement as a full script check (i.e. as would be done for full >>> compilation), which seems overly restrictive when reading this >>> standard more carefully. >> >> You need to suggest specific text, especially if you want the >> document to describe interaction with ihave in more details. > > I was not saying that the interaction with ihave needs to be described > better, I was merely saying that during the discussion of the ihave > extension I noticed that the current formulation of the syntactic > validation requirement is very much open for interpretation. IMHO, > this is usually a bad thing in a document that is intended to > establish a standard. > > I am not very good at writing such texts myself, but I can provide a > textual representation of how I interpret the sentence 'The server > MUST check the submitted script for syntactic validity, which includes > checking that all Sieve extensions mentioned in Sieve script "require" > statement(s) are supported by the Sieve interpreter.' (somewhere on > page 20): > > 'The server MUST check the submitted script for validity, which > includes checking that the script complies with the Sieve grammar > [SIEVE], that all Sieve extensions mentioned in script's "require" > statement(s) are supported by the Sieve interpreter, Good so far. > that all used commands are known (i.e. either part of the main Sieve > language or an extension mentioned in the "require" lines), I think this text is not going to be good in presence of ihave extension. So I would rather omit or reword this part. > that commands are used in the correct context I am not sure what you mean here. > and that the supplied command arguments are valid for each command. IMHO, this part is good. > Essentially, the performed validation should be equal to what is > performed when compiling the script for execution. Implementations > that use a binary representation to store compiled scripts can extend > the validation to a full compile, in order to avoid validating > uploaded scripts multiple times.' This text is good and might be helpful. > Does this interpretation match your intention of that sentence? I am > also wondering what others think of this. I can imagine that the ihave > authors have some amendments, but I think the text that follows the > aforementioned sentence in the draft should cover most potential issues. While I generally agree with the intent of your new text, I think it demonstrates cases when saying less is actually better than saying more: a very specific text might unintentionally exclude some valid checks. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAUA3REj023887 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sun, 30 Nov 2008 03:03:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAUA3RqP023886; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 03:03:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kalyani.oryx.com (kalyani.oryx.com [195.30.37.30]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAUA3FJ8023861 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 03:03:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no) Received: from kalyani.oryx.com (localhost.oryx.com [127.0.0.1]) by kalyani.oryx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12A5E4AC75; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 11:03:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from arnt@oryx.com (HELO lochnagar.oryx.com) by kalyani.oryx.com (Archiveopteryx 3.1.0) with esmtp id 1228039393-6858-1/6/12 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 11:03:13 +0100 Message-Id: <lcgcjF3lGEGwjNTS38ovyA.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 11:03:19 +0100 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: evaluating tests when the result makes no sense References: <492E981E.60501@aegee.org> <01N2I489UWTC00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> <uv6+COl1/zLWuYXN5+YhPw.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> <alpine.BSO.1.10.0811291420180.14410@vanye.sendmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSO.1.10.0811291420180.14410@vanye.sendmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Philip Guenther writes: > On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: >> Further, and perhaps more seriously, I don't see any requirement of >> order. As far as I can see, a sieve implementation can evalue >> header and envelope in either order in this case: > > An implementation can do that only if the 'variables' extensions has > not been required. The variables spec, RFC 5229, says this in section > 3.2: > The interpreter MUST short-circuit tests, i.e., not perform more > tests than necessary to find the result. Evaluation order MUST be > left to right. If a test has two or more list arguments, the > implementation is free to choose which to iterate over first. OK. I had a vague intention of someday doing just that... "apply sieve script to all old mail", which would transmogrify the sieve script into a series of rather complex SQL queries and shuffle mail around from where it is to where the sieve script would have filed it. That would, among other things, make the RDBMS query planner choose evaluation order based on expected performance, and probably make the whole operation faster by a few orders of magnitude. Arnt Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mATMQPZC099228 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:26:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mATMQPZQ099227; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:26:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ladle.sendmail.com (ladle.sendmail.com [209.246.26.53]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mATMQDZr099220 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verifyúIL) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:26:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from guenther+mtafilters@sendmail.com) Received: from fife.sendmail.com (fife.sendmail.com [209.246.26.50]) by ladle.sendmail.com (Switch-3.3.1/Sentrion-3.0.0) with ESMTP id mATMRqlR007714 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verifyúIL); Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:27:53 -0800 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=sendmail.com; s=ladle.dkim; t27997673; bh=8GSFZD8SuFDvZXDhu5b1BoAz2TG5EPcW6gEc qsxNBNs=; h=Received:X-DKIM:DKIM-Signature:Date:From:X-X-Sender:To: cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:User-Agent: MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-MM-Ex-RefId; b=mXvaVo2Duc3uFu/dbiSaxIU JdyXq6zgfSFj2BiVR4D7VMNQ2Rk5DMXLNgJsLe8V2XJ86xkDPLVGa4kWrrUHOPALI4h EDnHGe++mCC7O5QBvJMIxnNZ1sH8OtTiNNNuJa7pe7tWb5lh5uKwFeWjEOtJbb5kOF8 xOGOC3xaMmnTpQReceived: from 208-100-155-88.bendbroadband.com (208-100-155-88.bendbroadband.com [208.100.155.88]) (authenticated bits=0) by fife.sendmail.com (Switch-3.3.1/Switch-3.3.2mp) with ESMTP id mATMPu42031870 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:26:00 -0800 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.5.6 fife.sendmail.com mATMPu42031870 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sendmail.com; s=fife.dkim; t27997563; bh=8GSFZD8SuFDvZXDhu5b1BoAz2TG5EPcW6gEcq sxNBNs=; hÚte:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID: References:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=FNO6ixSuJ1kc6N0cnZSPvSBrgl TLu9eiuJ7nB+pklg8et6TGUIwXbmLTQvCMDNVp0VvxEHhd+8DoJiysaJklz797M6Grq J4TX5zAZ7eTonSSnNXjuADC3u0pmxZhenAB6weOe94kTNepKFLZqzuWG4ByX8tDxVR4 ZF8j6YC4V8QDate: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:25:54 -0800 From: Philip Guenther <guenther+mtafilters@sendmail.com> X-X-Sender: guenther@vanye.sendmail.com To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: evaluating tests when the result makes no sense In-Reply-To: <uv6+COl1/zLWuYXN5+YhPw.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> Message-ID: <alpine.BSO.1.10.0811291420180.14410@vanye.sendmail.com> References: <492E981E.60501@aegee.org> <01N2I489UWTC00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> <uv6+COl1/zLWuYXN5+YhPw.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (BSO 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-MM-Ex-RefId: 149371::081129142601-55644B90-6E644071/0-0/0-1 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > I _thought_ sieve required short-circuiting, but didn't feel courageous > enough reply to Dilian's message... The base spec doesn't require it because it's not observable without variables. > The only occurence of "short-curcuit" in 3028 was removed in 5228, and I > didn't see anything to replace it. Further, and perhaps more seriously, > I don't see any requirement of order. As far as I can see, a sieve > implementation can evalue header and envelope in either order in this > case: An implementation can do that only if the 'variables' extensions has not been required. The variables spec, RFC 5229, says this in section 3.2: The interpreter MUST short-circuit tests, i.e., not perform more tests than necessary to find the result. Evaluation order MUST be left to right. If a test has two or more list arguments, the implementation is free to choose which to iterate over first. Philip Guenther Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mATM30jU098309 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:03:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mATM30P1098308; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:03:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kalyani.oryx.com (kalyani.oryx.com [195.30.37.30]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mATM2n5H098297 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:03:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no) Received: from kalyani.oryx.com (localhost.oryx.com [127.0.0.1]) by kalyani.oryx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68F234AC1B; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 23:02:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from arnt@oryx.com (HELO lochnagar.oryx.com) by kalyani.oryx.com (Archiveopteryx 3.1.0) with esmtp id 1227996168-6858-1/6/11 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 23:02:48 +0100 Message-Id: <uv6+COl1/zLWuYXN5+YhPw.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 23:02:52 +0100 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: evaluating tests when the result makes no sense References: <492E981E.60501@aegee.org> <01N2I489UWTC00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> In-Reply-To: <01N2I489UWTC00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Hi, I _thought_ sieve required short-circuiting, but didn't feel courageous enough reply to Dilian's message... The only occurence of "short-curcuit" in 3028 was removed in 5228, and I didn't see anything to replace it. Further, and perhaps more seriously, I don't see any requirement of order. As far as I can see, a sieve implementation can evalue header and envelope in either order in this case: if anyof ( header ... , envelope ... ) { ... } Have I been smoking the good stuff? Arnt Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mATLhlYp097608 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:43:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mATLhl8s097607; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:43:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mATLhaT8097596 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:43:46 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from ned.freed@mrochek.com) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01N2I48B3DYO00NZ60@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:43:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01N2HRTN30Y800007A@mauve.mrochek.com>; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:43:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:37:51 -0800 (PST) From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Subject: Re: evaluating tests when the result makes no sense In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:52:46 +0100" <492E981E.60501@aegee.org> To: =?UTF-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= <Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org> Cc: IETF Sieve WG <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Message-id: <01N2I489UWTC00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <492E981E.60501@aegee.org> Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> > Are implementations permitted to stop evaluating a test, Yes. Not only are they permitted to do so, the variables extensions makes short-circuiting a requirement - see RFC 5229 section 3.2. > when the result > makes no sense, e.g. in anyof(true, header "A" "B") evaluate "header"? I think you meant "don't evaluate". > The point is, that Sieve-Variables, says (Sec. 3.2. Match Variables) > The decimal value of the match variable name will index the list of > matching strings from the most recently evaluated successful match of > type ":matches". > However it is not very clear for me if every test needs to be evaluated, Which is exactly why the specification requires short-circuiting. > and thus if the last :match test was permitted to be evaluated, is it > necessary to evaluate it? Consider a message > A: Xa > B: Xb > C: Mc > and > if anyof (header :matches ["A", "B"] "X*", > header :matches "C" "M*") { > //what is ${1}? > } > What would be the value of ${1} It's required to be "a". > * a - because after finding it out, the result of the first header test > is clear. Having true as the first parameter of anyof, then anyof stops > evaluation. > * c - because this is the last matched test and the evaluation has not > stopped after finding out that the first header test suffices for the > result of anyof > * b - header evaluates all possibilities, and anyof stops when the > result is clear. > Thanks in advance for your opinion, This isn't a question of having an opinion, it's a question of what the specification already requires. Ned Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mATI9S6t085151 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:09:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mATI9SPv085150; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:09:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mATI9FYR085139 for <ietf-mta-filters@vpnc.org>; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:09:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [92.40.223.82] (92.40.223.82.sub.mbb.three.co.uk [92.40.223.82]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <STGFRwBa-0Dh@rufus.isode.com>; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 18:09:13 +0000 Message-ID: <49318515.7040305@isode.com> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 18:08:21 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Mester <mester@freemail.hu> CC: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>, ietf-mta-filters@vpnc.org Subject: Re: forward mail to a local user References: <49310769.4080801@freemail.hu> <l7pzWBwTDNa6hgbvlSKinA.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> <493114AF.7070308@freemail.hu> In-Reply-To: <493114AF.7070308@freemail.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Mester wrote: >Hi, > >I also tried it but it has the same resault. >I tried localuser@localdomain but it sais invalid e-mail address. > > I think you want to use: redirect "localuser@whatever.doma.in"; I.e. there is no such Sieve action as 'forward'. Also the email address must be quoted (as suggested by Arnt). >Attila > > >>mester@freemail.hu writes: >> >> >>>if header :contains ["received"] "for EMAIL@ALIAS" { >>> forward localuser; >>>} >>> >>> >>Try forward "localuser@whatever.doma.in"; >> >>Some software does not have the concept of local users at all. >> >>Arnt >> >> Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mATA8kT7061406 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sat, 29 Nov 2008 03:08:46 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mATA8kKd061405; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 03:08:46 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp.enternet.hu (smtp.enternet.hu [62.112.192.21]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mATA8io4061399 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@vpnc.org>; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 03:08:45 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mester@freemail.hu) Received: from [62.112.206.69] (helo=[192.168.2.2]) by smtp.enternet.hu with esmtpa (Exim 4) id 1L6Mkl-0009u4-E9; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:08:43 +0100 Message-ID: <493114AF.7070308@freemail.hu> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:08:47 +0100 From: Mester <mester@freemail.hu> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> CC: ietf-mta-filters@vpnc.org Subject: Re: forward mail to a local user References: <49310769.4080801@freemail.hu> <l7pzWBwTDNa6hgbvlSKinA.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> In-Reply-To: <l7pzWBwTDNa6hgbvlSKinA.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Hi, I also tried it but it has the same resault. I tried localuser@localdomain but it sais invalid e-mail address. Attila > mester@freemail.hu writes: >> if header :contains ["received"] "for EMAIL@ALIAS" { >> forward localuser; >> } > > Try forward "localuser@whatever.doma.in"; > > Some software does not have the concept of local users at all. > > Arnt > > Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAT9V6R4059280 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sat, 29 Nov 2008 02:31:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAT9V6Gh059279; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 02:31:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kalyani.oryx.com (kalyani.oryx.com [195.30.37.30]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAT9Ut6p059262 for <ietf-mta-filters@vpnc.org>; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 02:31:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no) Received: from kalyani.oryx.com (localhost.oryx.com [127.0.0.1]) by kalyani.oryx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF244AC1B; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:30:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from arnt@oryx.com (HELO lochnagar.oryx.com) by kalyani.oryx.com (Archiveopteryx 3.1.0) with esmtp id 1227951051-6858-1/6/8 (2 recipients); Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:30:51 +0100 Message-Id: <l7pzWBwTDNa6hgbvlSKinA.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:30:55 +0100 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> To: mester@freemail.hu Subject: Re: forward mail to a local user Cc: ietf-mta-filters@vpnc.org References: <49310769.4080801@freemail.hu> In-Reply-To: <49310769.4080801@freemail.hu> Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> mester@freemail.hu writes: > if header :contains ["received"] "for EMAIL@ALIAS" { > forward localuser; > } Try forward "localuser@whatever.doma.in"; Some software does not have the concept of local users at all. Arnt Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAT9CJZx058733 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sat, 29 Nov 2008 02:12:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAT9CJkw058732; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 02:12:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp.enternet.hu (smtp.enternet.hu [62.112.192.21]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAT9C7bc058695 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@vpnc.org>; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 02:12:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mester@freemail.hu) Received: from [62.112.206.69] (helo=[192.168.2.2]) by smtp.enternet.hu with esmtpa (Exim 4) id 1L6Lrx-0007G7-Gu for ietf-mta-filters@vpnc.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:12:05 +0100 Message-ID: <49310769.4080801@freemail.hu> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:12:09 +0100 From: Mester <mester@freemail.hu> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-mta-filters@vpnc.org Subject: forward mail to a local user Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Hi, I have a Debian 4.0 server with Sieve enabled Cyrus IMAP and Exim4. I have one e-mail address at my internet provider with two aliases. I use fetchmail to download the e-mail account to a local user, but I want to forward the messages arrived with one alias to another local user. I wrote a small script but it sais invalid e-mail address. How can I correct it? (sendmail localuser < ... works just fine) My script looks like this: if header :contains ["received"] "for EMAIL@ALIAS" { forward localuser; } Attila Mesterhazy Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mARFI0RG029550 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Thu, 27 Nov 2008 08:18:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mARFI0iV029549; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 08:18:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mARFHnUm029520 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 08:18:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [192.168.0.8] ((unknown) [62.3.217.253]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SS66GwBa-13Y@rufus.isode.com>; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 15:17:47 +0000 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <492EB9FC.2010803@isode.com> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 15:17:16 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: WGLC on draft-melnikov-sieve-imapext-metadata-04.tx References: <4915C4B7.5050501@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4915C4B7.5050501@isode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Folks, > with my co-chair hat on I would like to start the Sieve Working Group > Last Call for the following document: > > The SIEVE mail filtering language - extension for accessing mailbox > metadata > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-melnikov-sieve-imapext-metadata-04.txt> > > > The Working Group Last Call for this document starts on November 10th and > will end on November 28th (so it is almost 3 weeks, so that the IETF > meeting in Dublin is covered). I've updated the document once (mostly editirial) based on comments from Cyrus. See <http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-melnikov-sieve-imapext-metadata-05.txt> for a detailed list of changes. I am planning to update the document once again to remove "_" from test names, e.g. "mailbox_exists" would become "mailboxexists". Please speak up if you have any objections. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mARCr9u7017207 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:53:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mARCr9tX017206; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:53:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp.aegee.uni-karlsruhe.de (smtp.aegee.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.60.220]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mARCqvNa017173 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher®S256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:53:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org) Received: from smtp.aegee.org (aegeeserv.aegee.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.131.80]) by smtp1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 4.63 #1) id 1L5gMZ-00085R-A1; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:52:55 +0100 X-Mail-Sent-By-AEGEE.org-Account: didopalauzov Received: from [192.168.1.5] (d90-134-40-65.cust.tele2.de [90.134.40.65]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.aegee.org (8.14.3/8.13.6) with ESMTP id mARCqpUq011123 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:52:54 GMT Message-ID: <492E981E.60501@aegee.org> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:52:46 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= <Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF Sieve WG <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: evaluating tests when the result makes no sense Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.94.2/8686/Thu Nov 27 11:28:15 2008 on AEGEEserv.aegee.uni-karlsruhe.de X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Hello, Are implementations permitted to stop evaluating a test, when the result makes no sense, e.g. in anyof(true, header "A" "B") evaluate "header"? The point is, that Sieve-Variables, says (Sec. 3.2. Match Variables) The decimal value of the match variable name will index the list of matching strings from the most recently evaluated successful match of type ":matches". However it is not very clear for me if every test needs to be evaluated, and thus if the last :match test was permitted to be evaluated, is it necessary to evaluate it? Consider a message A: Xa B: Xb C: Mc and if anyof (header :matches ["A", "B"] "X*", header :matches "C" "M*") { //what is ${1}? } What would be the value of ${1} * a - because after finding it out, the result of the first header test is clear. Having true as the first parameter of anyof, then anyof stops evaluation. * c - because this is the last matched test and the evaluation has not stopped after finding out that the first header test suffices for the result of anyof * b - header evaluates all possibilities, and anyof stops when the result is clear. Thanks in advance for your opinion, ÐилÑн Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAQ4fj8e007106 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:41:45 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAQ4fjro007105; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:41:45 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAQ4fYOX007096 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:41:45 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.2.150] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SSzTdwBa-5Dy@rufus.isode.com>; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:41:31 +0000 Message-ID: <492CD354.90401@isode.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:40:52 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> CC: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: ManageSieve: sieve: URIs and OWNER capability References: <490CA45B.7080001@isode.com> <4912D0BC.4000008@rename-it.nl> <4915B94C.5080509@isode.com> <492C65F9.8030008@isode.com> <1227648505.28017.36.camel@turtle> In-Reply-To: <1227648505.28017.36.camel@turtle> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Aaron Stone wrote: >On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 20:54 +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > >>Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> >>>>Then two other changes would make this particularly useful: >>>>1. Allow a script name (at least in putscript) to be either a Sieve URI >>>>or a local name. This allows, for example, a secretary to set the >>>>script for her boss. >>>> >>>> >>We've discussed this in more details in Minneapolis and the room >>agreement was that ManageSieve commands should accept URIs in addition >>to script names. >>However, I am having second thoughts on this. >> >>1). It looks like at least the following commands would need to be updated: >> HAVESPACE, PUTSCRIPT, GETSCRIPT, DELETESCRIPT >> >>But LISTSCRIPTS returns script names. Should it be changed to return >>URIs? I think this would break all existing clients, so I don't think >>that an unextended version of LISTSCRIPTS should do that. >> >>Also, should it list *all* scripts accessible by the current user, or >>just personal scripts? The former seems like an extension that Dilian >>was talking about. >> >>2). Considering that Sieve script names are in Unicode it would also >>make sense to specify IRI version of Sieve URIs. I frankly don't have >>experience specifying IRIs. >> >> >>So my current thinking is that these changes might have undesired >>effects on existing clients and they also seem to require quite a bit of >>work. >>But I really want to get this document done (for Lemonade/OMA MEM among >>other things). So can we postpone this change till an extension? >> >> >+51% wait to work on an extension. Now that we've enumerated some more >of the issues URI's raise, I think it's likely we'll get really stuck on >working out the details. > > Agreed. >Is there another way that we can achieve the goal of one user modifying >another user's Sieve scripts that's not too ugly and can easily become >URI in a future revision? > > We already have UNAUTHENTICATE. But using URIs would be quite elegant. >Is there a path we might agree on for merging Sieve management into IMAP >protocol, and cease work on ManageSieve at some reasonable level of >functionality? > > You already know my personal answer to this question ;-). Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAPLWNE1086382 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:32:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAPLWNIY086381; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:32:23 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.serendipity.cx (serendipity.palo-alto.ca.us [66.92.2.87]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAPLWDVi086364 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:32:23 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from aaron@serendipity.cx) Received: from [172.16.1.33] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.serendipity.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id F15AE1F8F; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:34:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: ManageSieve: sieve: URIs and OWNER capability From: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org In-Reply-To: <492C65F9.8030008@isode.com> References: <490CA45B.7080001@isode.com> <4912D0BC.4000008@rename-it.nl> <4915B94C.5080509@isode.com> <492C65F9.8030008@isode.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:28:24 -0800 Message-Id: <1227648505.28017.36.camel@turtle> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 20:54 +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > [...] > > >> Then two other changes would make this particularly useful: > >> 1. Allow a script name (at least in putscript) to be either a Sieve URI > >> or a local name. This allows, for example, a secretary to set the > >> script for her boss. > > > We've discussed this in more details in Minneapolis and the room > agreement was that ManageSieve commands should accept URIs in addition > to script names. > However, I am having second thoughts on this. > > 1). It looks like at least the following commands would need to be updated: > HAVESPACE, PUTSCRIPT, GETSCRIPT, DELETESCRIPT > > But LISTSCRIPTS returns script names. Should it be changed to return > URIs? I think this would break all existing clients, so I don't think > that an unextended version of LISTSCRIPTS should do that. > > Also, should it list *all* scripts accessible by the current user, or > just personal scripts? The former seems like an extension that Dilian > was talking about. > > 2). Considering that Sieve script names are in Unicode it would also > make sense to specify IRI version of Sieve URIs. I frankly don't have > experience specifying IRIs. > > > So my current thinking is that these changes might have undesired > effects on existing clients and they also seem to require quite a bit of > work. > But I really want to get this document done (for Lemonade/OMA MEM among > other things). So can we postpone this change till an extension? +51% wait to work on an extension. Now that we've enumerated some more of the issues URI's raise, I think it's likely we'll get really stuck on working out the details. Is there another way that we can achieve the goal of one user modifying another user's Sieve scripts that's not too ugly and can easily become URI in a future revision? Is there a path we might agree on for merging Sieve management into IMAP protocol, and cease work on ManageSieve at some reasonable level of functionality? > >> 2. Add a capability that advertises the owner name that applies to a > >> given managesieve session (this would be derived from the > >> authentication id). > > > > [I think Chris meant "authorization identity" above.] > > > > So, OWNER corresponds to 2). When using SASL authentication a client > > can authenticate as one person ("authentication identity"), but be > > allowed to act as another ("authorization identity"). OWNER is > > returning the latter. > > > > I have a weak preference for having the OWNER capability. So far I > > found a couple of reasons for it: > > > > Imagine you have a ManageSieve client that need to process several > > Sieve URIs (e.g. to update several scripts). > > The client would be able to compare the "owner" part of an URI against > > the value returned in the OWNER capability in order to decide if it > > needs to authenticate as another user before processing another script > > identified by a URI. > > > > I also think that the OWNER capability can be useful for debugging > > (i.e. for analyzing protocol trace logs). Of course this only helps if > > the client requests capabilities after authentication. > > I've missed another obvious use case: constructing URIs to give them to > third parties. It would be a shame if the Sieve URI's ended up being like email message ID's -- they look like something that you could use to uniquely identify and retrieve a message from somewhere in the universe, but not really. Aaron Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAPKtLG2083086 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:55:21 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAPKtLtW083085; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:55:21 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAPKtHhn083075 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:55:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.2.190] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SSxmLQBa-yDr@rufus.isode.com>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:55:11 +0000 Message-ID: <492C65F9.8030008@isode.com> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:54:17 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: ManageSieve: sieve: URIs and OWNER capability References: <490CA45B.7080001@isode.com> <4912D0BC.4000008@rename-it.nl> <4915B94C.5080509@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4915B94C.5080509@isode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Alexey Melnikov wrote: [...] >> Then two other changes would make this particularly useful: >> 1. Allow a script name (at least in putscript) to be either a Sieve URI >> or a local name. This allows, for example, a secretary to set the >> script for her boss. > We've discussed this in more details in Minneapolis and the room agreement was that ManageSieve commands should accept URIs in addition to script names. However, I am having second thoughts on this. 1). It looks like at least the following commands would need to be updated: HAVESPACE, PUTSCRIPT, GETSCRIPT, DELETESCRIPT But LISTSCRIPTS returns script names. Should it be changed to return URIs? I think this would break all existing clients, so I don't think that an unextended version of LISTSCRIPTS should do that. Also, should it list *all* scripts accessible by the current user, or just personal scripts? The former seems like an extension that Dilian was talking about. 2). Considering that Sieve script names are in Unicode it would also make sense to specify IRI version of Sieve URIs. I frankly don't have experience specifying IRIs. So my current thinking is that these changes might have undesired effects on existing clients and they also seem to require quite a bit of work. But I really want to get this document done (for Lemonade/OMA MEM among other things). So can we postpone this change till an extension? >> 2. Add a capability that advertises the owner name that applies to a >> given managesieve session (this would be derived from the >> authentication id). > > [I think Chris meant "authorization identity" above.] > > So, OWNER corresponds to 2). When using SASL authentication a client > can authenticate as one person ("authentication identity"), but be > allowed to act as another ("authorization identity"). OWNER is > returning the latter. > > I have a weak preference for having the OWNER capability. So far I > found a couple of reasons for it: > > Imagine you have a ManageSieve client that need to process several > Sieve URIs (e.g. to update several scripts). > The client would be able to compare the "owner" part of an URI against > the value returned in the OWNER capability in order to decide if it > needs to authenticate as another user before processing another script > identified by a URI. > > I also think that the OWNER capability can be useful for debugging > (i.e. for analyzing protocol trace logs). Of course this only helps if > the client requests capabilities after authentication. I've missed another obvious use case: constructing URIs to give them to third parties. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAPKkoLP082434 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:46:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAPKkobC082433; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:46:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAPKkc7Z082410 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:46:49 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.2.190] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SSxkKwBa-2-4@rufus.isode.com>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:46:36 +0000 Message-ID: <492C63F2.9030509@isode.com> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:45:38 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: =?UTF-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= <Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org> CC: IETF Sieve WG <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: managesieve: formats; :global; read-only; checkscript References: <49271D09.90408@aegee.org> In-Reply-To: <49271D09.90408@aegee.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Hi ÐилÑн, ÐилÑн ÐалаÑзов wrote: > Hello, > > Some more thoughts on ManageSieve: > > *FORMATS* Provided that a sieve-script can have textual > (application/sieve) format, and xml format > (draft-freed-sieve-in-xml-01) it would be interesting when a > managesieve-server can live with several possible sieve-formats. I > would like to suggest adding a third optional parameter to PUTSCRIPT > and GETSCRIPT specifying the format of the sieve code. Strictly > speaking an intelligent ManageSieve server would recognize the format > automatically and a dummy server would return in GETSCRIPT the file as > it was uploaded (regardless of the format). However with a third > parameter to GETSCRIPT a server can be used for converting between xml > - application/sieve (- cyrus-sieve-bytecode). > > > *:GLOBAL* Provided that draft-daboo-sieve-include is not dead, and > users can "include :global" it would be useful to provide > managesieve-possibilities to see how the global scripts are written. > My suggestion is to let the user see the global scripts, when the > authorization ID is the empty string. In terms of the Sieve URL > Scheme, the global scripts could be accessible when owner = '\0'. I > mean when > sieveurl-script = "sieve://" [ authority ] "/" > [owner "/"] scriptname > has the form > sieveurl-script = "sieve://" [ authority ] "//" scriptname > then requested are the global scripts. While I think having a standardized way of accessing global scripts would be a good idea, I am not convinced that the empty string is going to be Ok. This might have some weird side effects on URI parsers (but I am not sure). > *READ-ONLY* In this case however the users shall have only read-only > access on the global scripts and one more Response Code will be > appropriate READONLY (returned together with NO after PUTSCRIPT and > together with OK after AUTHENTICATE). > > This makes sense in one more case: Imagine there are sieve scripts, > that SMTP/ejerect-s mails from non-subscribers. In this case the > people who manage the list might be interested to see how the script > looks like, but shall not to able to create mess by changing it. As a > matter of fact for a list there could be more than one scrips > generated (e.g. for the address ...-unsubscribe@), so... > > Would be too weird if I propose a new command "LISTAUTHZ" (or alike) > listing the authorization IDs that can be used by the user with the > current authentication ID? This creates security issues. Besides the list of all allowed authorization ids might not be readily available. > *CHECKSCRIPT* I don't like very much the command CHECKSCRIPT, cause > the same things can be achieved by using "" as first parameter to > PUTSCRIPT and allowing it in unauthenticated-state (incl. changing the > ABNF for PUTSCRIPT to permit sieve-name or empty-string as 1st > parameter). PUTSCRIPT "" provides the same flexibility as CHECKSCRIPT > and keeps the protocol simpler. I am afraid you are going against rough WG consensus in this case. > Moreover > > "LANGUAGE - ... Note that the current language MAY be per-user > configurable (i.e. it MAY change after authentication)." > > (How) shall a user be able to set a language? It is not currently possible. An extension would be needed in order to add the ability to change a user's language. > Greetings, > Dilian > > > PS: The link at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sieve/ to Draft dependency > graphs (http://www.fenron.com/~fenner/ietf/deps/viz/sieve.pdf) is not > working. It seems to be working now. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAO8bpCA019009 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Mon, 24 Nov 2008 01:37:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAO8bpud019008; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 01:37:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com (out1.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAO8bckm018996 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 01:37:48 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from matthew@elvey.com) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3C581C651E; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 03:37:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from heartbeat1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 24 Nov 2008 03:37:37 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: JEds1WtHsj3k6i/SxQ7BHpLfhKC8lPyzPNRWTt+eeZNB 1227515857 Received: from [192.168.18.136] (c-67-169-82-244.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.169.82.244]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2A1D9B987; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 03:37:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <492A67D0.5010708@elvey.com> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:37:36 -0800 From: Matthew Elvey <matthew@elvey.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1b1pre) Gecko/20081006 Shredder/3.0a3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> CC: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject approved by IESG References: <cmu-sieve-23365-1227118041-0@store31m.internal> <D454D92F-F39E-49E3-AD04-0EF4746F1F9A@osafoundation.org> <492463FB.9080908@isode.com> <49267F47.6010300@elvey.com> <1227290705.14052.57.camel@turtle> <49273643.6050604@elvey.com> <tJ0lgwNGJlFhgoGYIYlygw.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> In-Reply-To: <tJ0lgwNGJlFhgoGYIYlygw.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to <http://www.habeas.com/report/>. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> On 11/21/08 4:11 PM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > > Matthew Elvey writes: >> I'm sorry if I didn't make clear the main change I wanted made (undone). > > My code is able, or not, to carry out an ereject in a manner different > from reject. It depends on this and that, including factors beyond > control of my code. The code may even be able to do it when the sieve > script is uploaded, but unable to when it's executed. Sorry, I don't have ESP, so I don't know what you're talking about. I came up with a contrived example, but haven't come up with a realistic one. Have you one you can provide? > > Making a script invalid between upload and execution is not at all > desirable. Not having ereject at all is not desirable either. You've not presented a case (real world or otherwise) fixed by Aaron's change I wanted undone. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAMJ66Xj032251 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sat, 22 Nov 2008 12:06:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAMJ66ni032250; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 12:06:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kalyani.oryx.com (kalyani.oryx.com [195.30.37.30]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAMJ5qrU032242 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 12:06:03 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no) Received: from kalyani.oryx.com (localhost.oryx.com [127.0.0.1]) by kalyani.oryx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C0994AC5A; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:05:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from arnt@oryx.com (HELO lochnagar.oryx.com) by kalyani.oryx.com (Archiveopteryx 3.1.0) with esmtp id 1227380750-35306-1/6/6 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:05:50 +0100 Message-Id: <Z+fUmr8WQRG5AfIGaTUjgA.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:04:56 +0100 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> To: sieve mailing list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: subaddress, *sigh* Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Far too many web shopping sites and other software refuse to accept arnt+thisorthat@example.com as a valid address. This week I've run into something worse. Tobit.de makes a mail server which, AFAICT, transforms arnt+abcdary@example.com into arnt«cdary@example.com. Absolutely lovely. Arnt Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAM0CJdg094874 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:12:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAM0CJj6094873; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:12:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kalyani.oryx.com (kalyani.oryx.com [195.30.37.30]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAM0C64J094823 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:12:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no) Received: from kalyani.oryx.com (localhost.oryx.com [127.0.0.1]) by kalyani.oryx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A45134AC72; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:12:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from arnt@oryx.com (HELO lochnagar.oryx.com) by kalyani.oryx.com (Archiveopteryx 3.1.0) with esmtp id 1227312724-28070-1/6/1 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:12:04 +0100 Message-Id: <tJ0lgwNGJlFhgoGYIYlygw.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:11:09 +0100 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject approved by IESG References: <cmu-sieve-23365-1227118041-0@store31m.internal> <D454D92F-F39E-49E3-AD04-0EF4746F1F9A@osafoundation.org> <492463FB.9080908@isode.com> <49267F47.6010300@elvey.com> <1227290705.14052.57.camel@turtle> <49273643.6050604@elvey.com> In-Reply-To: <49273643.6050604@elvey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Matthew Elvey writes: > I'm sorry if I didn't make clear the main change I wanted made (undone). And since someone needs to say why this didn't sway the WG rough consensus, I'll say why I'm not persuaded. My code is able, or not, to carry out an ereject in a manner different from reject. It depends on this and that, including factors beyond control of my code. The code may even be able to do it when the sieve script is uploaded, but unable to when it's executed. Making a script invalid between upload and execution is not at all desirable. Not having ereject at all is not desirable either. And so on. Aaron's solution is the best compromise I can think of, in the sense that it minimises the sum of undesirable aspects. Arnt Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mALMTbWi090754 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:29:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mALMTbNP090753; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:29:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com (out1.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mALMTQrI090745 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:29:36 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from matthew@elvey.com) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 043CA1C5E59; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:29:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from heartbeat2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:29:26 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: DIw5Caz9+IXHetQBHXYfUW+qSWOmvkBwx944bYuieXDb 1227306565 Received: from [192.168.18.136] (c-67-169-82-244.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.169.82.244]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D46962EEEB; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:29:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <49273643.6050604@elvey.com> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:29:23 -0800 From: Matthew Elvey <matthew@elvey.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1b1pre) Gecko/20081006 Shredder/3.0a3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> CC: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@sun.com>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject approved by IESG References: <cmu-sieve-23365-1227118041-0@store31m.internal> <D454D92F-F39E-49E3-AD04-0EF4746F1F9A@osafoundation.org> <492463FB.9080908@isode.com> <49267F47.6010300@elvey.com> <1227290705.14052.57.camel@turtle> In-Reply-To: <1227290705.14052.57.camel@turtle> X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to <http://www.habeas.com/report/>. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> On 11/21/08 10:05 AM, Aaron Stone wrote: > Hi Matthew, > > We can definitely get the author information fixed before publication, > at least during AUTH48 if not sooner by request to the RFC Editor. > Thanks. FYI: On 7/20/08 6:51 AM, Matthew Elvey wrote to webtools@ and ietf-action@: > Hello, and thanks for your surely often thankless work. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject/ has > my name misspelled in two places. > > Please > s/Mathew Elley/Matthew Elvey/ (you can check the draft: > http://ietfreport.isoc.org/ids/draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-07.txt to > verify the correct spelling. Please also replace the email address > (sieve3@matthew.elvey.com) with sievedraft4@matthew.elvey.com; the > former is no longer valid. > > The spelling errors have started to spread; > http://www.google.com/search?&q="Mathew Elley" shows this. > On 7/28/08 3:14 PM, Matthew Elvey wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:28:52 -0700, "Cindy Morgan via RT" > <iesg-secretary@> said: > >> According to our records, your request has been resolved. If you have any >> further questions or concerns, please respond to this message. >> > > Thanks. > > It seems the spelling was corrected, but my email was removed instead of > replaced. > Since I'm strongly opposed to the draft, I'd like to remain reachable... > > Thanks. > Aaron Stone continues: > I didn't respond to your earlier objections because I couldn't figure > out where the substantive changes were, and even so, none had any WG > consensus. I apologize for basically ignoring you, but the WG has strong > consensus on this document as it now stands and really, really wants to > see it published. > I'm sorry if I didn't make clear the main change I wanted made (undone). Let me try, 3 more times, to make it as understandable as I can, for the record. Unfortunately, every explanation seems to require several qualifiers. You changed the specification so that a compliant implementation could allow a "require" of the enhanced reject action (i.e. "refuse" or "ereject") to succeed on a system that had no capability to perform protocol level message rejection of messages from the outside world because of an intervening store-and-forward MTA within the ADMD of the implementation. I never saw significant support expressed for that change. I have no reason to think the change was intentional and harbor no grudge. If I could make the explanation simpler, I would. Let me state it as a question: Can the ereject action be available in environments that DO NOT support protocol level rejection of messages as they come in from untrusted third parties but DO support protocol level rejection as messages arrive at an MDA from an MTA within the ADMD of the MDA? Or here's a graphical version. In the implementation below, can x be store-and-forward or not? (If it is, the MTA cannot perform protocol level rejection of messages from the MSA in response to a signal from the MDA, because it will have already accepted the message from the MSA. If it is not, then the MTA can perform protocol level rejection of messages from the MSA in response to a signal from the MDA, because it will have not yet accepted the message from the MSA.) ADMD +--------------------------------+ | | +----------+ Internet connection | +----------+ x +----------+ | | MSA |--------------------------->|-->| MTA |-->| MDA | | +----------+ | +----------+ +----------+ | | | +--------------------------------+ It can be reverted with a simple insertion of a single sentence, e.g.: The ereject action MUST NOT be available in environments that do not support protocol level rejection of messages as they come in from third parties in response to an ereject action, e.g. an MUA or an MDA receiving messages on a store-and-forward basis from an MTA. The current spec actually has almost identical language already: "The ereject action MUST NOT be available in environments that do not support protocol level rejection, e.g. an MUA" but the details at the end of the sentence are critical. > Best, > Aaron Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mALKg5bw087511 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:42:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mALKg5hg087510; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:42:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp.aegee.uni-karlsruhe.de (smtp.aegee.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.60.220]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mALKfr4U087499 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher®S256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:42:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org) Received: from smtp.aegee.org (aegeeserv.aegee.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.131.80]) by smtp1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 4.63 #1) id 1L3cp5-0006Mn-Hl; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:41:51 +0100 X-Mail-Sent-By-AEGEE.org-Account: didopalauzov Received: from [192.168.1.3] (d90-134-23-15.cust.tele2.de [90.134.23.15]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.aegee.org (8.14.3/8.13.6) with ESMTP id mALKfnQh000319 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:41:51 GMT Message-ID: <49271D09.90408@aegee.org> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:41:45 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= <Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF Sieve WG <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: managesieve: formats; :global; read-only; checkscript Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.94.1/8661/Fri Nov 21 15:39:30 2008 on AEGEEserv.aegee.uni-karlsruhe.de X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Hello, Some more thoughts on ManageSieve: *FORMATS* Provided that a sieve-script can have textual (application/sieve) format, and xml format (draft-freed-sieve-in-xml-01) it would be interesting when a managesieve-server can live with several possible sieve-formats. I would like to suggest adding a third optional parameter to PUTSCRIPT and GETSCRIPT specifying the format of the sieve code. Strictly speaking an intelligent ManageSieve server would recognize the format automatically and a dummy server would return in GETSCRIPT the file as it was uploaded (regardless of the format). However with a third parameter to GETSCRIPT a server can be used for converting between xml - application/sieve (- cyrus-sieve-bytecode). *:GLOBAL* Provided that draft-daboo-sieve-include is not dead, and users can "include :global" it would be useful to provide managesieve-possibilities to see how the global scripts are written. My suggestion is to let the user see the global scripts, when the authorization ID is the empty string. In terms of the Sieve URL Scheme, the global scripts could be accessible when owner = '\0'. I mean when sieveurl-script = "sieve://" [ authority ] "/" [owner "/"] scriptname has the form sieveurl-script = "sieve://" [ authority ] "//" scriptname then requested are the global scripts. *READ-ONLY* In this case however the users shall have only read-only access on the global scripts and one more Response Code will be appropriate READONLY (returned together with NO after PUTSCRIPT and together with OK after AUTHENTICATE). This makes sense in one more case: Imagine there are sieve scripts, that SMTP/ejerect-s mails from non-subscribers. In this case the people who manage the list might be interested to see how the script looks like, but shall not to able to create mess by changing it. As a matter of fact for a list there could be more than one scrips generated (e.g. for the address ...-unsubscribe@), so... Would be too weird if I propose a new command "LISTAUTHZ" (or alike) listing the authorization IDs that can be used by the user with the current authentication ID? *CHECKSCRIPT* I don't like very much the command CHECKSCRIPT, cause the same things can be achieved by using "" as first parameter to PUTSCRIPT and allowing it in unauthenticated-state (incl. changing the ABNF for PUTSCRIPT to permit sieve-name or empty-string as 1st parameter). PUTSCRIPT "" provides the same flexibility as CHECKSCRIPT and keeps the protocol simpler. Moreover "LANGUAGE - ... Note that the current language MAY be per-user configurable (i.e. it MAY change after authentication)." (How) shall a user be able to set a language? Greetings, Dilian PS: The link at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sieve/ to Draft dependency graphs (http://www.fenron.com/~fenner/ietf/deps/viz/sieve.pdf) is not working. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mALI97FZ081351 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:09:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mALI97tS081350; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:09:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.serendipity.cx (serendipity.palo-alto.ca.us [66.92.2.87]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mALI8uac081342 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:09:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from aaron@serendipity.cx) Received: from [70.7.61.245] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.serendipity.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C4542940; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:10:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject approved by IESG From: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> To: Matthew Elvey <matthew@elvey.com> Cc: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@Sun.COM>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org In-Reply-To: <49267F47.6010300@elvey.com> References: <cmu-sieve-23365-1227118041-0@store31m.internal> <D454D92F-F39E-49E3-AD04-0EF4746F1F9A@osafoundation.org> <492463FB.9080908@isode.com> <49267F47.6010300@elvey.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:05:04 -0800 Message-Id: <1227290705.14052.57.camel@turtle> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Hi Matthew, We can definitely get the author information fixed before publication, at least during AUTH48 if not sooner by request to the RFC Editor. I didn't respond to your earlier objections because I couldn't figure out where the substantive changes were, and even so, none had any WG consensus. I apologize for basically ignoring you, but the WG has strong consensus on this document as it now stands and really, really wants to see it published. Best, Aaron On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 01:28 -0800, Matthew Elvey wrote: > On 11/19/08 11:07 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > Lisa Dusseault wrote (Re: Fwd: SIEVE bounced SIEVE bounce message): > > > >> Oh the irony. I send a message saying that the SIEVE document > >> refuse-reject has been approved, and it gets bounced by Elvey's SIEVE > >> filter. > > > > Yes. Messages from Cyrus, Aaron and myself all bounced as well. > Sorry about that. Perhaps you were using the sieve3@matthew.elvey.com > address that I retired long ago. I did not want that address in > refuse-reject either. I asked that it be replaced with > matthew@elvey...., to no avail. Too late, no? I wrote to the list on > 9/10/08: "I believe ... issues that have been raised need to be > addressed; a WGLC and LC are also needed. " I don't see that -09 had > either a WGLC or LC. > > -09 is a big improvement on RFC 3028, but fails to address some of the > issues I raised on on 9/10/08, primarily the inappropriateness of > allowing a system "B" to be considered compliant with "ereject". > > (BTW, the MAY in > " However implementations MAY refuse delivery over SMTP/LMTP > protocol " (line 318) > should be a SHOULD; I don't see what holds it back. The last-minute > removals of the word "purported" also makes the spec misleading; they > hide a hurdle that contributed to its deficiencies.) > > I am still strongly opposed to to a situation where, if a system implementing the spec works on a store-and-forward basis, it can claim to support ereject, as defined in an RFC. > > We've got Cyrus Daboo, TS Glassy, John Kleinsin, and Kristin Hubner > using a ridiculous straw man argument as the excuse to push through this > flawed I-D to RFC status, instead of making the small limited changes I > have pushed for. (Perhaps some of them led the others to be confused.) > Specifically, they act as if I haven't made it extremely clear, on > multiple occasions, that I know that there are plenty of key use cases > where only doing SMTP protocol rejection is not possible. I had, but > nonetheless, claiming that I hadn't and that they existed was the > primary straw man argument used. I'm the primary author of the first > half dozen versions of this draft, all of which, as I'd recently pointed > out, went into great detail to make exceptions (including MDNs and DSNs) > for the key use cases where SMTP protocol rejection is not possible. So > once again, for the record, I'd like to point out that I never made > light of those exceptions. > Amazingly, that straw man argument was in response to my post in which I > said, among other things: > > Ned acts like [I'm] saying that I'm against allowing Japanese users to fall > back to out-of-transaction rejects when non-ASCII reject strings need to > be used. I'm not. Look at the drafts I wrote! They don't do that! > > > > > I'm not upset that people disagree with me. I'd be fine if the > consensus in the WG (despite my opposition) was that the spam the draft > unnecessarily permits wasn't important, and if the IESG voted to make it > an RFC on that basis, following IETF procedure. I would be unhappy, > sure. but I wouldn't be pissed off. > But violating process, avoiding debates on the merits, and resorting to > straw man attacks? That was not cool, and not professional. > Ned's nasty insults and smearing of me was particularly galling - Ned > provided no specifics, but claimed I made many inaccurate references to > him and Sun. I on the other hand, responded to Ned's (and others') > debate points. I pointed out where Ned had misread what I'd said, or I > had misspoken, or was wrong, or disagreed. If we don't have debates on > the merits, and honest dialogue, but instead give political speeches, or > worse, attack each other, (both of which remind me of typical US > political debates) we end up with lousy specifications. > > Well, I guess on the bright side, at least the debate is over. The > horse is dead, the sausage stuffed, as far as I'm concerned. DNR, I say. > > > >> Lisa > >> > >> Begin forwarded message: > >> > >>> *From: *Mail Sieve Subsystem <postmaster@messagingengine.com > >>> <mailto:postmaster@messagingengine.com>> > >>> *Date: *November 19, 2008 12:07:21 PM CST > >>> *To: *<lisa@osafoundation.org <mailto:lisa@osafoundation.org>> > >>> *Subject: **Automatically rejected mail* > >>> > >>> Your message was automatically rejected by Sieve, a mail > >>> filtering language. > >>> ... > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> There are no remaining DISCUSS positions on this document, and it > >>> looks like it has enough ballot positions filled to approve. There > >>> are no RFC Editor notes. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Lisa > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAL9T5Me059497 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:29:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAL9T5hs059496; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:29:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com (out1.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAL9Srl9059486 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:29:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from matthew@elvey.com) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.internal [10.202.2.42]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0631C83C4; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:28:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from heartbeat1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:28:52 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: UJKO7q4kioOVVIry2p1Z2xHaRJIubWtdl7cofJu7O/6J 1227259732 Received: from [192.168.18.136] (c-67-169-82-244.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.169.82.244]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A51C66B9C; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:28:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <49267F47.6010300@elvey.com> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:28:39 -0800 From: Matthew Elvey <matthew@elvey.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1b1pre) Gecko/20081006 Shredder/3.0a3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> CC: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, sieve-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@Sun.COM>, ietf@ietf.org, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject approved by IESG References: <cmu-sieve-23365-1227118041-0@store31m.internal> <D454D92F-F39E-49E3-AD04-0EF4746F1F9A@osafoundation.org> <492463FB.9080908@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <492463FB.9080908@isode.com> X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to <http://www.habeas.com/report/>. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> On 11/19/08 11:07 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Lisa Dusseault wrote (Re: Fwd: SIEVE bounced SIEVE bounce message): > >> Oh the irony. I send a message saying that the SIEVE document >> refuse-reject has been approved, and it gets bounced by Elvey's SIEVE >> filter. > > Yes. Messages from Cyrus, Aaron and myself all bounced as well. Sorry about that. Perhaps you were using the sieve3@matthew.elvey.com address that I retired long ago. I did not want that address in refuse-reject either. I asked that it be replaced with matthew@elvey...., to no avail. Too late, no? I wrote to the list on 9/10/08: "I believe ... issues that have been raised need to be addressed; a WGLC and LC are also needed. " I don't see that -09 had either a WGLC or LC. -09 is a big improvement on RFC 3028, but fails to address some of the issues I raised on on 9/10/08, primarily the inappropriateness of allowing a system "B" to be considered compliant with "ereject". (BTW, the MAY in " However implementations MAY refuse delivery over SMTP/LMTP protocol " (line 318) should be a SHOULD; I don't see what holds it back. The last-minute removals of the word "purported" also makes the spec misleading; they hide a hurdle that contributed to its deficiencies.) I am still strongly opposed to to a situation where, if a system implementing the spec works on a store-and-forward basis, it can claim to support ereject, as defined in an RFC. We've got Cyrus Daboo, TS Glassy, John Kleinsin, and Kristin Hubner using a ridiculous straw man argument as the excuse to push through this flawed I-D to RFC status, instead of making the small limited changes I have pushed for. (Perhaps some of them led the others to be confused.) Specifically, they act as if I haven't made it extremely clear, on multiple occasions, that I know that there are plenty of key use cases where only doing SMTP protocol rejection is not possible. I had, but nonetheless, claiming that I hadn't and that they existed was the primary straw man argument used. I'm the primary author of the first half dozen versions of this draft, all of which, as I'd recently pointed out, went into great detail to make exceptions (including MDNs and DSNs) for the key use cases where SMTP protocol rejection is not possible. So once again, for the record, I'd like to point out that I never made light of those exceptions. Amazingly, that straw man argument was in response to my post in which I said, among other things: Ned acts like [I'm] saying that I'm against allowing Japanese users to fall back to out-of-transaction rejects when non-ASCII reject strings need to be used. I'm not. Look at the drafts I wrote! They don't do that! I'm not upset that people disagree with me. I'd be fine if the consensus in the WG (despite my opposition) was that the spam the draft unnecessarily permits wasn't important, and if the IESG voted to make it an RFC on that basis, following IETF procedure. I would be unhappy, sure. but I wouldn't be pissed off. But violating process, avoiding debates on the merits, and resorting to straw man attacks? That was not cool, and not professional. Ned's nasty insults and smearing of me was particularly galling - Ned provided no specifics, but claimed I made many inaccurate references to him and Sun. I on the other hand, responded to Ned's (and others') debate points. I pointed out where Ned had misread what I'd said, or I had misspoken, or was wrong, or disagreed. If we don't have debates on the merits, and honest dialogue, but instead give political speeches, or worse, attack each other, (both of which remind me of typical US political debates) we end up with lousy specifications. Well, I guess on the bright side, at least the debate is over. The horse is dead, the sausage stuffed, as far as I'm concerned. DNR, I say. > >> Lisa >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> *From: *Mail Sieve Subsystem <postmaster@messagingengine.com >>> <mailto:postmaster@messagingengine.com>> >>> *Date: *November 19, 2008 12:07:21 PM CST >>> *To: *<lisa@osafoundation.org <mailto:lisa@osafoundation.org>> >>> *Subject: **Automatically rejected mail* >>> >>> Your message was automatically rejected by Sieve, a mail >>> filtering language. >>> ... >> >> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> There are no remaining DISCUSS positions on this document, and it >>> looks like it has enough ballot positions filled to approve. There >>> are no RFC Editor notes. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Lisa >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAKNj1V0038407 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:45:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAKNj1o7038406; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:45:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [64.170.98.32]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAKNj1O1038400 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:45:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from root@core3.amsl.com) Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id F3BCC3A6984; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:45:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-mime-loop-08.txt Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20081120234501.F3BCC3A6984@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:45:01 -0800 (PST) Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Sieve Mail Filtering Language Working Group of the IETF. Title : Sieve Email Filtering: MIME part Tests, Iteration, Extraction, Replacement and Enclosure Author(s) : T. Hansen, C. Daboo Filename : draft-ietf-sieve-mime-loop-08.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2008-11-20 This document defines extensions to the Sieve email filtering language to permit analysis and manipulation of the MIME body parts of an email message. Note This document is being discussed on the MTA-FILTERS mailing list, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sieve-mime-loop-08.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-sieve-mime-loop-08.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-11-20154144.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAKMcbLR036263 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:38:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAKMcbNi036262; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:38:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAKMcaxu036256 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:38:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [130.129.31.232] ((unknown) [130.129.31.232]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SSXm5gBa-5M4@rufus.isode.com>; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:38:33 +0000 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <4925E6D1.1030504@isode.com> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:38:09 -0600 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Who is planning to implement draft-freed-sieve-notary-02.txt? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> I would appreciate feedback from people who would like to implement this document or have already implemented extensions from it. Please reply to the mailing list or directly to me. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAJJJu9m051428 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:19:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAJJJu5x051427; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:19:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [64.170.98.32]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAJJJt59051420 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:19:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wwwrun@core3.amsl.com) Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id C584C3A6BB6; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:19:55 -0800 (PST) X-idtracker: yes From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, sieve mailing list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>, sieve chair <sieve-chairs@tools.ietf.org> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Sieve Email Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions' to Proposed Standard Message-Id: <20081119191955.C584C3A6BB6@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:19:55 -0800 (PST) Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Sieve Email Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions ' <draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-09.txt> as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Sieve Mail Filtering Language Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Lisa Dusseault and Chris Newman. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-09.txt Technical Summary This memo updates the definition of the Sieve mail filtering language "reject" extension, originally defined in RFC 3028. The original Sieve "reject" action defined in RFC 3028 required use of MDNs for rejecting messages, thus contributing to the spam to victims of certain spoofing attacks. This memo allows messages to be refused during the SMTP transaction, and defines the "ereject" action to require messages to be refused during the SMTP transaction, if possible. Working Group Summary There is controversy, because the original author of the document, Matthew Elvey, objected during IETF Last Call, and does not like some of the decisions made by the WG. Elvey asked until the beginning of September to explain his objections and we are still waiting for these explanations. The WG chairs feel they have rough WG consensus on the document, particularly around the choices that Elvey disapproves of. Document Quality This is a revision to an existing standard, based on implementation and deployment experience. Thus, the quality of the document reflects that actual experience and feedback. Personnel Lisa Dusseault reviewed this document for the IESG. RFC Editor Note (Insert RFC Editor Note here or remove section) IESG Note (Insert IESG Note here or remove section) IANA Note (Insert IANA Note here or remove section) Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAJ59XXw099261 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:09:33 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAJ59XKV099260; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:09:33 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail161.messagelabs.com (mail161.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.115]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAJ59Lcg099249 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verifyúIL) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:09:32 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from tony@att.com) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-161.messagelabs.com!1227071360!14765727!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141] Received: (qmail 11816 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2008 05:09:20 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-8.tower-161.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 19 Nov 2008 05:09:20 -0000 Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mAJ59Kit004128 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:09:20 -0800 Received: from klph001.kcdc.att.com (klph001.kcdc.att.com [135.188.3.11]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mAJ59Fmx003626 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:09:15 -0800 Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id mAJ59FRg014625 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:09:15 -0600 Received: from maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id mAJ598mi014567 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:09:08 -0600 Received: from [135.210.96.94] (unknown[135.210.96.94](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20081119050907gw1000u6ese> (Authid: tony); Wed, 19 Nov 2008 05:09:07 +0000 Message-ID: <49239F6F.2040207@att.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:09:03 -0500 From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF MTA Filters List <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: modified text for sieve mime loop section References: <49235A6E.8060802@att.com> <49239CC2.5020501@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <49239CC2.5020501@isode.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> sounds good. Anything else? Tony Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > Tony Hansen wrote: > >> Regarding the multiple enclose issue with respect to the sieve mime loop >> specification, here is the modified text I'm putting in to the doc based >> on yesterday's WG meeting. Does anyone have comments/modifications? >> >> Tony Hansen >> tony@att.com >> >> If multiple "enclose" actions are executed by a script, the message is >> enclosed multiple times. (If a Sieve script desires to choose between >> different enclosures, or wants to delay the enclosure to the end of the >> script, it can use variables with appropriate tests. <xref >> target="RFC5229" />) >> >> > This looks good to me. > > I would also change the following paragraph in Section 6: > > OLD: > A new Sieve action command is defined to allow an entire message to > be enclosed as an attachment to a new message. After enclosure, > subsequent actions affecting the message header or content use the > newly created message instead of the original message; this means > that any use of a "replace" action or other similar actions should be > executed before the "enclose" action. > > NEW: > A new Sieve action command is defined to allow an entire message to > be enclosed as an attachment to a new message. After enclosure, > subsequent actions affecting the message header or content, > as well as tests operating on the MIME structure or accessing > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > MIME header fields, use the > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > newly created message instead of the original message; this means > that any use of a "replace" action or other similar actions should be > executed before the "enclose" action. > > To make it clear that tests might also be affected by the enclose action. > Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAJ4wQAd098867 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:58:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAJ4wPTO098866; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:58:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAJ4wCFN098853 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:58:23 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [192.168.1.106] ((unknown) [75.146.152.44]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SSOc2ABa-0Zz@rufus.isode.com>; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 04:58:01 +0000 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <49239CC2.5020501@isode.com> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:57:38 -0600 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> CC: IETF MTA Filters List <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: modified text for sieve mime loop section References: <49235A6E.8060802@att.com> In-Reply-To: <49235A6E.8060802@att.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Tony Hansen wrote: >Regarding the multiple enclose issue with respect to the sieve mime loop >specification, here is the modified text I'm putting in to the doc based >on yesterday's WG meeting. Does anyone have comments/modifications? > > Tony Hansen > tony@att.com > >If multiple "enclose" actions are executed by a script, the message is >enclosed multiple times. (If a Sieve script desires to choose between >different enclosures, or wants to delay the enclosure to the end of the >script, it can use variables with appropriate tests. <xref >target="RFC5229" />) > > This looks good to me. I would also change the following paragraph in Section 6: OLD: A new Sieve action command is defined to allow an entire message to be enclosed as an attachment to a new message. After enclosure, subsequent actions affecting the message header or content use the newly created message instead of the original message; this means that any use of a "replace" action or other similar actions should be executed before the "enclose" action. NEW: A new Sieve action command is defined to allow an entire message to be enclosed as an attachment to a new message. After enclosure, subsequent actions affecting the message header or content, as well as tests operating on the MIME structure or accessing ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ MIME header fields, use the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ newly created message instead of the original message; this means that any use of a "replace" action or other similar actions should be executed before the "enclose" action. To make it clear that tests might also be affected by the enclose action. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAJ0F3ba086917 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:15:03 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAJ0F3X2086916; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:15:03 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAJ0Epmj086900 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verifyúIL) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:15:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from tony@att.com) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1227053690!43908512!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141] Received: (qmail 2466 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2008 00:14:51 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-12.tower-120.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 19 Nov 2008 00:14:51 -0000 Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mAJ0Eoit011517 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:14:50 -0800 Received: from klph001.kcdc.att.com (klph001.kcdc.att.com [135.188.3.11]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mAJ0EjnF011488 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:14:45 -0800 Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id mAJ0EjUg007922 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:14:45 -0600 Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id mAJ0EelY007903 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:14:40 -0600 Received: from [135.210.114.86] (unknown[135.210.114.86](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20081119001439gw1000u6e9e> (Authid: tony); Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:14:39 +0000 Message-ID: <49235A6E.8060802@att.com> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:14:38 -0500 From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF MTA Filters List <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: modified text for sieve mime loop section X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Regarding the multiple enclose issue with respect to the sieve mime loop specification, here is the modified text I'm putting in to the doc based on yesterday's WG meeting. Does anyone have comments/modifications? Tony Hansen tony@att.com If multiple "enclose" actions are executed by a script, the message is enclosed multiple times. (If a Sieve script desires to choose between different enclosures, or wants to delay the enclosure to the end of the script, it can use variables with appropriate tests. <xref target="RFC5229" />) Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAID4A7a046153 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Nov 2008 06:04:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAID4AKc046152; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 06:04:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAID49DB046146 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 06:04:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [192.168.1.106] ((unknown) [75.146.152.44]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SSK9RwBNh0Mo@rufus.isode.com>; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:04:08 +0000 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <4922BD31.80001@isode.com> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 07:03:45 -0600 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> CC: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject (Sieve Email Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions) to Proposed Standard References: <20080727120256.E26073A68B7@core3.amsl.com> <047b01c8fbc8$2034eeb0$ad600240@china.huawei.com> <491D7EF4.60402@isode.com> <1226965998.9913.82.camel@turtle> In-Reply-To: <1226965998.9913.82.camel@turtle> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Aaron Stone wrote: >On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 13:36 +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > >>>2.3. Silent upgrade from reject to ereject >>> >>> Implementations MUST NOT silently upgrade reject actions to ereject >>> actions, however user interfaces may change the specific action >>> underlying a descriptive representation, thereby effecting a silent >>> upgrade of sorts. >>> >>>Spencer (technical): ??? I may not understand the point here, but from >>>the user's point of view, the requirement seems religious - protocol >>>implementations are prohibited from silently upgrading, but user >>>interfaces aren't, and the effect on the rejected e-mail, from the >>>user's perspective, is the same, isn't it? >>> >>> >>It might or might not be the same from user's perspective. >>Some users only care that the message is rejected, other users care that >>their rejection reason get sent correctly to the other end. >> >> >>>Or is this talking about "silently upgrading reject actions" without >>>making sure that the other side is ereject-capable? >>> >>> >>I am not sure what do you call "the other side" in this case. Sieve >>engine or end user who sent the message being rejected? >> >>Anyway I do agree that this sentence reads awkwardly. It is trying to >>say 2 things: >>1). Silently upgrading a Sieve script exposed to the user is a bad >>thing, because it might change rejection behavior in an expected (to the >>script owner) way. >>2). But if the reject action is not exposed directly to the user (e.g. >>if it is hidden behind some kind of filtering rule UI that never shows >>Sieve script to the user, then silently upgrading might be Ok. >> >>Based on this let me try to rephrase this sentence: >> >> Implementations MUST NOT silently upgrade reject actions to ereject >> actions in a Sieve script, because this might lead to unpleasant change of >> behavior not expected by the owner of the Sieve script. >> However user interfaces that hide/don't present generated Sieve scripts >> from the user MAY change the specific action, as long as behavior >> as far as the user is concerned hasn't changed. >> >>Is this better? >> >> >I've rephrased it slightly, how's this: > > Implementations MUST NOT silently upgrade reject actions to > ereject actions in a Sieve script, because this might lead to > unpleasant changes of behavior not expected by the script owner. > > User interfaces that present a generic rejection option, and > generate Sieve script output, MAY switch from generating reject > to ereject actions, so long as doing so does not create a confusing > change for the script owner. > > Yes, this is fine with me. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAID3FBm046093 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Nov 2008 06:03:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAID3FsX046092; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 06:03:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAID330t046059 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 06:03:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [192.168.1.106] ((unknown) [75.146.152.44]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SSK85gBNh1Qc@rufus.isode.com>; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:03:02 +0000 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <4922BCD0.9010805@isode.com> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 07:02:08 -0600 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> CC: Alexandros Vellis <avel@noc.uoa.gr>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: WGLC on draft-freed-sieve-notary-01.txt References: <48E26ADF.2080404@isode.com> <20081001160407.14f39e8e@noc.uoa.gr> <01N21HUEH7ZS00MISX@mauve.mrochek.com> In-Reply-To: <01N21HUEH7ZS00MISX@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Ned Freed wrote: >>* Idea: Would it make sense to name these capabilities 'envelope-dsn' >>and 'redirect-dsn'? Because in a way they extend these existing >>capabilities, and also because in the future we could have names like >>'envelope-auth' "align" with them. >> >> >I don't feel strongly about this either way, but I'm reluctant to change it >unless others agree that it is worth it. Comments? > I slightly prefer Alexandros' suggestion. But if you already have this implemented, don't bother changing. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAI9hLto033349 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:43:21 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAI9hLrZ033348; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:43:21 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from cola.rename-it.nl (cola.rename-it.nl [217.119.231.192]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAI9h8O0033335 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher®S256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:43:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from stephan@rename-it.nl) Received: from ewi1299.ewi.utwente.nl ([130.89.145.113]) by cola.rename-it.nl with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <stephan@rename-it.nl>) id 1L2N6e-00036X-5w; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:42:48 +0100 Message-ID: <49228E18.9060808@rename-it.nl> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:42:48 +0100 From: Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> CC: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-01.txt (review) References: <490CA45B.7080001@isode.com> <4912D0BC.4000008@rename-it.nl> <49131581.6050903@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <49131581.6050903@isode.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RenameIT-MailScanner-VirusScan: Found to be clean X-RenameIT-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-2.228, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -0.40, AWL 0.77, BAYES_00 -2.60) X-RenameIT-MailScanner-From: stephan@rename-it.nl X-Spam-Status: No Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > Hi Stephan, > Thank you for your review. > > I am quickly answering easy comments/questions and will followup on the > rest later on. >> 2.6: >> >> - Clarify what is meant by syntax checking. In the strictest sense it >> could mean that any script that complies with the basic grammar of the >> Sieve language would pass. Command syntax, i.e. which arguments are >> required/allowed, would then be ignored. Also, wouldn't it be >> helpful/useful/desirable to include contextual checks here as well? >> E.g. unknown/invalid comparators etc. > > IMHO, invalid/unknown comparator would be covered by syntactic checks. > >> I first encountered this distinction when discussing the ihave >> extension to the Sieve language. I implicitly interpreted this >> requirement as a full script check (i.e. as would be done for full >> compilation), which seems overly restrictive when reading this >> standard more carefully. > > You need to suggest specific text, especially if you want the document > to describe interaction with ihave in more details. I was not saying that the interaction with ihave needs to be described better, I was merely saying that during the discussion of the ihave extension I noticed that the current formulation of the syntactic validation requirement is very much open for interpretation. IMHO, this is usually a bad thing in a document that is intended to establish a standard. I am not very good at writing such texts myself, but I can provide a textual representation of how I interpret the sentence 'The server MUST check the submitted script for syntactic validity, which includes checking that all Sieve extensions mentioned in Sieve script "require" statement(s) are supported by the Sieve interpreter.' (somewhere on page 20): 'The server MUST check the submitted script for validity, which includes checking that the script complies with the Sieve grammar [SIEVE], that all Sieve extensions mentioned in script's "require" statement(s) are supported by the Sieve interpreter, that all used commands are known (i.e. either part of the main Sieve language or an extension mentioned in the "require" lines), that commands are used in the correct context and that the supplied command arguments are valid for each command. Essentially, the performed validation should be equal to what is performed when compiling the script for execution. Implementations that use a binary representation to store compiled scripts can extend the validation to a full compile, in order to avoid validating uploaded scripts multiple times.' Does this interpretation match your intention of that sentence? I am also wondering what others think of this. I can imagine that the ihave authors have some amendments, but I think the text that follows the aforementioned sentence in the draft should cover most potential issues. Regards, -- Stephan Bosch stephan@rename-it.nl Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAI1U3HU009087 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:30:03 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAI1U3ax009086; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:30:03 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [64.170.98.32]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAI1U2Aq009080 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:30:03 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from root@core3.amsl.com) Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 2D1B33A6AA3; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:30:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-09.txt Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20081118013002.2D1B33A6AA3@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:30:02 -0800 (PST) Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Sieve Mail Filtering Language Working Group of the IETF. Title : Sieve Email Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions Author(s) : A. Stone, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-09.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2008-11-17 This memo updates the definition of the Sieve mail filtering language "reject" extension, originally defined in RFC 3028. A "Joe-job" is a spam run forged to appear as though it came from an innocent party, who is then generally flooded by automated bounces, Message Disposition Notifications (MDNs), and personal messages with complaints. The original Sieve "reject" action defined in RFC 3028 required use of MDNs for rejecting messages, thus contributing to the flood of Joe-job spam to victims of Joe-jobs. This memo updates the definition of the "reject" action to allow messages to be refused during the SMTP transaction, and defines the "ereject" action to require messages to be refused during the SMTP transaction, if possible. The "ereject" action is intended to replace the "reject" action wherever possible. The "ereject" action is similar to "reject", but will always favor protocol level message rejection. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-09.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-09.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-11-17172551.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAI0U2Ua005777 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:30:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAI0U2Ht005776; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:30:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [64.170.98.32]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAI0U1Bq005769 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:30:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from root@core3.amsl.com) Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id E591328C164; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:30:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-freed-sieve-notary-02.txt Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20081118003001.E591328C164@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:30:01 -0800 (PST) Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Sieve Mail Filtering Language Working Group of the IETF. Title : Sieve Email Filtering: Delivery Status Notifications Extension Author(s) : N. Freed Filename : draft-freed-sieve-notary-02.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2008-11-17 This document describes the "dsn-envelope" and "dsn-redirect" extensions to the Sieve email filtering language. The "dsn-envelope" extension provides access to additional envelope information provided by the delivery status notification extension to SMTP defined in RFC 3461. The "dsn-redirect" extension extends Sieve's redirect action to provide control over delivery status notification parameters. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-freed-sieve-notary-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-freed-sieve-notary-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-11-17162459.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAI0DaQ9004998 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:13:36 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAI0DaI7004997; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:13:36 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAI0DZL4004991 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:13:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from ned.freed@mrochek.com) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01N21HY5G1O000I7XC@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:13:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01N2193KVUUO00MISX@mauve.mrochek.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:13:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:11:18 -0800 (PST) From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Subject: Re: WGLC on draft-freed-sieve-notary-01.txt In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:18:00 -0400 (EDT)" <Pine.GSO.4.62.0810011013150.3903@spaz.oit.wmich.edu> To: Derek Diget <derek.diget+ietf-mta-filters@wmich.edu> Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Message-id: <01N21HY43IJM00MISX@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <48E26ADF.2080404@isode.com> <Pine.GSO.4.62.0810011013150.3903@spaz.oit.wmich.edu> Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> > Typo - Section 6, second paragraph, last sentence: "then" to "them" > From > ...to request then using the... > To > ...to request them using the... Fixed, thanks. Ned Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAI0AalP004704 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:10:36 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAI0Aaoj004703; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:10:36 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAI0AZN7004697 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:10:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from ned.freed@mrochek.com) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01N21HUFWKTS00PML1@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:10:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01N2193KVUUO00MISX@mauve.mrochek.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:10:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:09:15 -0800 (PST) From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Subject: Re: WGLC on draft-freed-sieve-notary-01.txt In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:04:07 +0300" <20081001160407.14f39e8e@noc.uoa.gr> To: Alexandros Vellis <avel@noc.uoa.gr> Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Message-id: <01N21HUEH7ZS00MISX@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <48E26ADF.2080404@isode.com> <20081001160407.14f39e8e@noc.uoa.gr> Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> > * Typo: Chapter 7, second capability name should be dsn-redirect. :) Yep. Fixed. > * Idea: Would it make sense to name these capabilities 'envelope-dsn' > and 'redirect-dsn'? Because in a way they extend these existing > capabilities, and also because in the future we could have names like > 'envelope-auth' "align" with them. I don't feel strongly about this either way, but I'm reluctant to change it unless others agree that it is worth it. Comments? Ned Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAI07JPq004306 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:07:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAI07JCg004305; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:07:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAI079px004293 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:07:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from ned.freed@mrochek.com) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01N21HQ64AF400PQHU@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:07:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01N2193KVUUO00MISX@mauve.mrochek.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:07:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:05:41 -0800 (PST) From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Subject: Re: WGLC on draft-freed-sieve-notary-01.txt In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:07:52 +0200" <WxPyYZT7VbrwFPawr/ELFw.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Message-id: <01N21HQ500XC00MISX@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <48E26ADF.2080404@isode.com> <WxPyYZT7VbrwFPawr/ELFw.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> > Lovely stuff. Three suggestions. > 1. The previous extension named confused me. The new ones are much > better. But the document title could be updated to match. Good idea. Changed. > 2. IMHO dsn-redirect should apply to the vacation and notify/mailto > commands as well as to redirect. Alexey pointed out that this really doesn't apply to vacation. As for notify, perhaps that should just be done in the base notify-mailto specification since it isn't done yet. > 3. An ORCPT example in the paragraph about ORCPT, something like > "rfc822;midas@example.com". Good idea as well. Added. Ned Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAI048n8004139 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:04:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAI048f7004138; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:04:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.serendipity.cx (serendipity.palo-alto.ca.us [66.92.2.87]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAI03vfJ004126 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:04:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from aaron@serendipity.cx) Received: from [130.129.94.245] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.serendipity.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05D5B2936; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:05:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject (Sieve Email Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions) to Proposed Standard From: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org In-Reply-To: <491D7EF4.60402@isode.com> References: <20080727120256.E26073A68B7@core3.amsl.com> <047b01c8fbc8$2034eeb0$ad600240@china.huawei.com> <491D7EF4.60402@isode.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:53:18 -0800 Message-Id: <1226965998.9913.82.camel@turtle> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 13:36 +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > 2.3. Silent upgrade from reject to ereject > > > > Implementations MUST NOT silently upgrade reject actions to ereject > > actions, however user interfaces may change the specific action > > underlying a descriptive representation, thereby effecting a silent > > upgrade of sorts. > > > > Spencer (technical): ??? I may not understand the point here, but from > > the user's point of view, the requirement seems religious - protocol > > implementations are prohibited from silently upgrading, but user > > interfaces aren't, and the effect on the rejected e-mail, from the > > user's perspective, is the same, isn't it? > > It might or might not be the same from user's perspective. > Some users only care that the message is rejected, other users care that > their rejection reason get sent correctly to the other end. > > > Or is this talking about "silently upgrading reject actions" without > > making sure that the other side is ereject-capable? > > I am not sure what do you call "the other side" in this case. Sieve > engine or end user who sent the message being rejected? > > Anyway I do agree that this sentence reads awkwardly. It is trying to > say 2 things: > 1). Silently upgrading a Sieve script exposed to the user is a bad > thing, because it might change rejection behavior in an expected (to the > script owner) way. > 2). But if the reject action is not exposed directly to the user (e.g. > if it is hidden behind some kind of filtering rule UI that never shows > Sieve script to the user, then silently upgrading might be Ok. > > Based on this let me try to rephrase this sentence: > > Implementations MUST NOT silently upgrade reject actions to ereject > actions in a Sieve script, because this might lead to unpleasant change of > behavior not expected by the owner of the Sieve script. > However user interfaces that hide/don't present generated Sieve scripts > from the user MAY change the specific action, as long as behavior > as far as the user is concerned hasn't changed. > > Is this better? I've rephrased it slightly, how's this: Implementations MUST NOT silently upgrade reject actions to ereject actions in a Sieve script, because this might lead to unpleasant changes of behavior not expected by the script owner. User interfaces that present a generic rejection option, and generate Sieve script output, MAY switch from generating reject to ereject actions, so long as doing so does not create a confusing change for the script owner. Aaron Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAHKvZlv095398 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:57:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAHKvZKE095397; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:57:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.serendipity.cx (serendipity.palo-alto.ca.us [66.92.2.87]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAHKvNnw095390 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:57:33 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from aaron@serendipity.cx) Received: from [130.129.94.245] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.serendipity.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CD362936; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:58:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: DISCUSS and COMMENT: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject From: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Cc: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, ietf-mta-filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> In-Reply-To: <01N21APNMWYA00MISX@mauve.mrochek.com> References: <20080911075758.8D7523A69D3@core3.amsl.com> <491D830B.9090905@isode.com> <1226937973.9913.19.camel@turtle> <01N21APNMWYA00MISX@mauve.mrochek.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:46:56 -0800 Message-Id: <1226954816.9913.73.camel@turtle> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 12:37 -0800, Ned Freed wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 13:54 +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > > Hi Pasi, > > > My apologies for the delayed response: > > > > > > Pasi Eronen wrote: > > > > > > >Discuss: > > [snip] > > > >The document says the main difference between 'reject' and 'ereject' > > > >is that the latter allows SMTP/LMTP level rejection (and there are > > > >some details about non-ASCII strings). I think I understand this > > > >part, but it seems there's another difference: the former talks about > > > >sending an MDN, while the latter sends a DSN. > > > > > > > Correct. I would consider MDN versa DSN to be a minor difference. > > > > > > >I'm not that familiar with the distinction between MDNs and DSNs (and > > > >on first reading, thought they meant the same thing), > > > > > > > They are very similar syntactically. Semantically, DSN is for reporting > > > delivery status (don't involve a human), while MDN is for reporting user > > > processing status, such as message read, deleted without reading, etc. > > > > > > >and I think the > > > >document would benefit from short description here, reminding readers > > > >that they're not the same thing, and explaining why 'reject' and > > > >'ereject' do things differently. > > > > > > > The reason why MDNs were chosen in the first place, because reject > > > action could be implemented in a Mail User Agent. The MUA is not allowed > > > to generate DSNs, because the message was already delivered to user's > > > mailbox. At this point only MDNs can be generated. > > > > > > What happened after RFC 3028 came out was that many more Sieve engines > > > running inside MTAs or MDAs were developed. For them, generating MDN > > > might be a bit awkward. > > > > > > So I am not entirely convinced that stating this difference is going to > > > be very useful. Please let me know if you still think otherwise. > > > I accidentally left an editor's mark in the -08 draft I just posted, and > > mis-attributed the sentence above as [[[arnt's text]]]. I wanted to > > possibly put this into the document to describe the difference of MDN > > vs. DSN. > > > Proposed text: > > """ > > This document also specifies the use of a Delivery Status > > Notification [DSN] instead of an MDN when appropriate. In general, > > an MDN is generated by an MUA or MDA, and can be used to indicate > > the status of a message with respect to its recipient, while a DSN > > is generated by an MTA, and can be used to indicate whether or not > > a message was received and delivered by the mail system. In other > > words, an MDN is a human-oriented status while a DSN is a > > machine-oriented status. > > """ > > > I'll flip the location of this paragraph in the introduction wrt the > > paragraph that introduces the reference to EMAIL-ARCH so that MTA, MDA and MUA > > are already defined at this point. > > > Like it? Dislike it? Don't care? > > I don't feel strongly about this, but I don't think the distinction between > DSNs and MDns is their human versus machine orientation. Both contain > parts intended for human use and parts intended for machine use. > > Nor is it the case that DSNs are always generated by automatic action. For > example, we generate DSNs when a email admin forces return of a message through > our admin interface. > > I would therefore suggest just dropping the last sentence. The earlier part, > OTOH, is quite good and should be retained. Thanks, I rewrote it a bit and have posted its own thread to the list. Could you take a look at that version? Aaron Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAHKlJDA094844 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:47:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAHKlJnm094843; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:47:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAHKl80p094826 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:47:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from ned.freed@mrochek.com) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01N21AQXTD4000NAUA@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:46:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01N2193KVUUO00MISX@mauve.mrochek.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:45:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:37:12 -0800 (PST) From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Subject: Re: DISCUSS and COMMENT: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:06:11 -0800" <1226937973.9913.19.camel@turtle> To: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> Cc: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, ietf-mta-filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Message-id: <01N21APNMWYA00MISX@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <20080911075758.8D7523A69D3@core3.amsl.com> <491D830B.9090905@isode.com> <1226937973.9913.19.camel@turtle> Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> > On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 13:54 +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > Hi Pasi, > > My apologies for the delayed response: > > > > Pasi Eronen wrote: > > > > >Discuss: > [snip] > > >The document says the main difference between 'reject' and 'ereject' > > >is that the latter allows SMTP/LMTP level rejection (and there are > > >some details about non-ASCII strings). I think I understand this > > >part, but it seems there's another difference: the former talks about > > >sending an MDN, while the latter sends a DSN. > > > > > Correct. I would consider MDN versa DSN to be a minor difference. > > > > >I'm not that familiar with the distinction between MDNs and DSNs (and > > >on first reading, thought they meant the same thing), > > > > > They are very similar syntactically. Semantically, DSN is for reporting > > delivery status (don't involve a human), while MDN is for reporting user > > processing status, such as message read, deleted without reading, etc. > > > > >and I think the > > >document would benefit from short description here, reminding readers > > >that they're not the same thing, and explaining why 'reject' and > > >'ereject' do things differently. > > > > > The reason why MDNs were chosen in the first place, because reject > > action could be implemented in a Mail User Agent. The MUA is not allowed > > to generate DSNs, because the message was already delivered to user's > > mailbox. At this point only MDNs can be generated. > > > > What happened after RFC 3028 came out was that many more Sieve engines > > running inside MTAs or MDAs were developed. For them, generating MDN > > might be a bit awkward. > > > > So I am not entirely convinced that stating this difference is going to > > be very useful. Please let me know if you still think otherwise. > I accidentally left an editor's mark in the -08 draft I just posted, and > mis-attributed the sentence above as [[[arnt's text]]]. I wanted to > possibly put this into the document to describe the difference of MDN > vs. DSN. > Proposed text: > """ > This document also specifies the use of a Delivery Status > Notification [DSN] instead of an MDN when appropriate. In general, > an MDN is generated by an MUA or MDA, and can be used to indicate > the status of a message with respect to its recipient, while a DSN > is generated by an MTA, and can be used to indicate whether or not > a message was received and delivered by the mail system. In other > words, an MDN is a human-oriented status while a DSN is a > machine-oriented status. > """ > I'll flip the location of this paragraph in the introduction wrt the > paragraph that introduces the reference to EMAIL-ARCH so that MTA, MDA and MUA > are already defined at this point. > Like it? Dislike it? Don't care? I don't feel strongly about this, but I don't think the distinction between DSNs and MDns is their human versus machine orientation. Both contain parts intended for human use and parts intended for machine use. Nor is it the case that DSNs are always generated by automatic action. For example, we generate DSNs when a email admin forces return of a message through our admin interface. I would therefore suggest just dropping the last sentence. The earlier part, OTOH, is quite good and should be retained. Ned Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAHKSjYp093894 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:28:45 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAHKSjU5093893; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:28:45 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAHKSPlm093877 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:28:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [130.129.31.232] ((unknown) [130.129.31.232]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SSHT5gAJxVUw@rufus.isode.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:28:23 +0000 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <4921D3CC.6000607@isode.com> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:27:56 -0600 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> CC: ietf-mta-filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: DISCUSS and COMMENT: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject References: <20080911075758.8D7523A69D3@core3.amsl.com> <491D830B.9090905@isode.com> <1226937973.9913.19.camel@turtle> <1226946815.9913.57.camel@turtle> In-Reply-To: <1226946815.9913.57.camel@turtle> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Aaron Stone wrote: >Less verbose, previous paragraph for context: > >""" >Introduction >... > This document also describes how to use reject/ereject at varying > points in the email stack: Mail Transfer Agent (MTA), Mail Delivery > Agent (MDA), and Mail User Agent (MUA). See [EMAIL-ARCH] for a > comprehensive discussion of these environments. > > This document also specifies the use of a Delivery Status > Notification [DSN] instead of an MDN when appropriate. In general, > an MDN is a human-oriented status, generated by an MUA, while a > DSN is a machine-oriented status, generated by an MTA. >"""" > >On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 08:06 -0800, Aaron Stone wrote: > > >>On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 13:54 +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> >> >>>Hi Pasi, >>>My apologies for the delayed response: >>> >>>Pasi Eronen wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Discuss: >>>> >>>> >>[snip] >> >> >>>>The document says the main difference between 'reject' and 'ereject' >>>>is that the latter allows SMTP/LMTP level rejection (and there are >>>>some details about non-ASCII strings). I think I understand this >>>>part, but it seems there's another difference: the former talks about >>>>sending an MDN, while the latter sends a DSN. >>>> >>>> >>>Correct. I would consider MDN versa DSN to be a minor difference. >>> >>> >>>>I'm not that familiar with the distinction between MDNs and DSNs (and >>>>on first reading, thought they meant the same thing), >>>> >>>> >>>They are very similar syntactically. Semantically, DSN is for reporting >>>delivery status (don't involve a human), while MDN is for reporting user >>>processing status, such as message read, deleted without reading, etc. >>> >>> >>>>and I think the >>>>document would benefit from short description here, reminding readers >>>>that they're not the same thing, and explaining why 'reject' and >>>>'ereject' do things differently. >>>> >>>> >>>The reason why MDNs were chosen in the first place, because reject >>>action could be implemented in a Mail User Agent. The MUA is not allowed >>>to generate DSNs, because the message was already delivered to user's >>>mailbox. At this point only MDNs can be generated. >>> >>>What happened after RFC 3028 came out was that many more Sieve engines >>>running inside MTAs or MDAs were developed. For them, generating MDN >>>might be a bit awkward. >>> >>>So I am not entirely convinced that stating this difference is going to >>>be very useful. Please let me know if you still think otherwise. >>> >>> >>I accidentally left an editor's mark in the -08 draft I just posted, and >>mis-attributed the sentence above as [[[arnt's text]]]. I wanted to >>possibly put this into the document to describe the difference of MDN >>vs. DSN. >> >>Proposed text: >>""" >> This document also specifies the use of a Delivery Status >> Notification [DSN] instead of an MDN when appropriate. In general, >> an MDN is generated by an MUA or MDA, and can be used to indicate >> >> I can see MDA generating a DSN, so I would remove MDA from the above line. >> the status of a message with respect to its recipient, while a DSN >> is generated by an MTA, and can be used to indicate whether or not >> a message was received and delivered by the mail system. In other >> words, an MDN is a human-oriented status while a DSN is a >> machine-oriented status. >>""" >> >>I'll flip the location of this paragraph in the introduction wrt the paragraph that introduces the reference to EMAIL-ARCH so that MTA, MDA and MUA are already defined at this point. >> >>Like it? Dislike it? Don't care? >> >> This looks fine to me otherwise. But, I think we still need to discuss in the WG whether this text should be added. A topic for today's Sieve WG meeting. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAHIiMG6086801 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:44:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAHIiM1W086800; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:44:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.serendipity.cx (serendipity.palo-alto.ca.us [66.92.2.87]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAHIiMbb086794 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:44:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from aaron@serendipity.cx) Received: from [174.145.190.139] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.serendipity.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A4AC2937; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:45:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: DISCUSS and COMMENT: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject From: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Cc: ietf-mta-filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> In-Reply-To: <1226937973.9913.19.camel@turtle> References: <20080911075758.8D7523A69D3@core3.amsl.com> <491D830B.9090905@isode.com> <1226937973.9913.19.camel@turtle> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:33:34 -0800 Message-Id: <1226946815.9913.57.camel@turtle> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Less verbose, previous paragraph for context: """ Introduction ... This document also describes how to use reject/ereject at varying points in the email stack: Mail Transfer Agent (MTA), Mail Delivery Agent (MDA), and Mail User Agent (MUA). See [EMAIL-ARCH] for a comprehensive discussion of these environments. This document also specifies the use of a Delivery Status Notification [DSN] instead of an MDN when appropriate. In general, an MDN is a human-oriented status, generated by an MUA, while a DSN is a machine-oriented status, generated by an MTA. """" On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 08:06 -0800, Aaron Stone wrote: > On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 13:54 +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > Hi Pasi, > > My apologies for the delayed response: > > > > Pasi Eronen wrote: > > > > >Discuss: > [snip] > > >The document says the main difference between 'reject' and 'ereject' > > >is that the latter allows SMTP/LMTP level rejection (and there are > > >some details about non-ASCII strings). I think I understand this > > >part, but it seems there's another difference: the former talks about > > >sending an MDN, while the latter sends a DSN. > > > > > Correct. I would consider MDN versa DSN to be a minor difference. > > > > >I'm not that familiar with the distinction between MDNs and DSNs (and > > >on first reading, thought they meant the same thing), > > > > > They are very similar syntactically. Semantically, DSN is for reporting > > delivery status (don't involve a human), while MDN is for reporting user > > processing status, such as message read, deleted without reading, etc. > > > > >and I think the > > >document would benefit from short description here, reminding readers > > >that they're not the same thing, and explaining why 'reject' and > > >'ereject' do things differently. > > > > > The reason why MDNs were chosen in the first place, because reject > > action could be implemented in a Mail User Agent. The MUA is not allowed > > to generate DSNs, because the message was already delivered to user's > > mailbox. At this point only MDNs can be generated. > > > > What happened after RFC 3028 came out was that many more Sieve engines > > running inside MTAs or MDAs were developed. For them, generating MDN > > might be a bit awkward. > > > > So I am not entirely convinced that stating this difference is going to > > be very useful. Please let me know if you still think otherwise. > > I accidentally left an editor's mark in the -08 draft I just posted, and > mis-attributed the sentence above as [[[arnt's text]]]. I wanted to > possibly put this into the document to describe the difference of MDN > vs. DSN. > > Proposed text: > """ > This document also specifies the use of a Delivery Status > Notification [DSN] instead of an MDN when appropriate. In general, > an MDN is generated by an MUA or MDA, and can be used to indicate > the status of a message with respect to its recipient, while a DSN > is generated by an MTA, and can be used to indicate whether or not > a message was received and delivered by the mail system. In other > words, an MDN is a human-oriented status while a DSN is a > machine-oriented status. > """ > > I'll flip the location of this paragraph in the introduction wrt the paragraph that introduces the reference to EMAIL-ARCH so that MTA, MDA and MUA are already defined at this point. > > Like it? Dislike it? Don't care? > > Aaron > Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAHGH8JR077242 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:17:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAHGH8SV077241; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:17:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.serendipity.cx (serendipity.palo-alto.ca.us [66.92.2.87]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAHGGveL077228 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:17:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from aaron@serendipity.cx) Received: from [70.1.107.179] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.serendipity.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53D0B2937; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:18:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: DISCUSS and COMMENT: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject From: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Cc: ietf-mta-filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> In-Reply-To: <491D830B.9090905@isode.com> References: <20080911075758.8D7523A69D3@core3.amsl.com> <491D830B.9090905@isode.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:06:11 -0800 Message-Id: <1226937973.9913.19.camel@turtle> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 13:54 +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Hi Pasi, > My apologies for the delayed response: > > Pasi Eronen wrote: > > >Discuss: [snip] > >The document says the main difference between 'reject' and 'ereject' > >is that the latter allows SMTP/LMTP level rejection (and there are > >some details about non-ASCII strings). I think I understand this > >part, but it seems there's another difference: the former talks about > >sending an MDN, while the latter sends a DSN. > > > Correct. I would consider MDN versa DSN to be a minor difference. > > >I'm not that familiar with the distinction between MDNs and DSNs (and > >on first reading, thought they meant the same thing), > > > They are very similar syntactically. Semantically, DSN is for reporting > delivery status (don't involve a human), while MDN is for reporting user > processing status, such as message read, deleted without reading, etc. > > >and I think the > >document would benefit from short description here, reminding readers > >that they're not the same thing, and explaining why 'reject' and > >'ereject' do things differently. > > > The reason why MDNs were chosen in the first place, because reject > action could be implemented in a Mail User Agent. The MUA is not allowed > to generate DSNs, because the message was already delivered to user's > mailbox. At this point only MDNs can be generated. > > What happened after RFC 3028 came out was that many more Sieve engines > running inside MTAs or MDAs were developed. For them, generating MDN > might be a bit awkward. > > So I am not entirely convinced that stating this difference is going to > be very useful. Please let me know if you still think otherwise. I accidentally left an editor's mark in the -08 draft I just posted, and mis-attributed the sentence above as [[[arnt's text]]]. I wanted to possibly put this into the document to describe the difference of MDN vs. DSN. Proposed text: """ This document also specifies the use of a Delivery Status Notification [DSN] instead of an MDN when appropriate. In general, an MDN is generated by an MUA or MDA, and can be used to indicate the status of a message with respect to its recipient, while a DSN is generated by an MTA, and can be used to indicate whether or not a message was received and delivered by the mail system. In other words, an MDN is a human-oriented status while a DSN is a machine-oriented status. """ I'll flip the location of this paragraph in the introduction wrt the paragraph that introduces the reference to EMAIL-ARCH so that MTA, MDA and MUA are already defined at this point. Like it? Dislike it? Don't care? Aaron Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAHFF1D6072367 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:15:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAHFF1Op072366; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:15:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [64.170.98.32]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAHFF1Yf072359 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:15:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from root@core3.amsl.com) Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 6F2193A68F6; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:15:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-08.txt Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20081117151501.6F2193A68F6@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:15:01 -0800 (PST) Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Sieve Mail Filtering Language Working Group of the IETF. Title : Sieve Email Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions Author(s) : A. Stone, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-08.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2008-11-17 This memo updates the definition of the Sieve mail filtering language "reject" extension, originally defined in RFC 3028. A "Joe-job" is a spam run forged to appear as though it came from an innocent party, who is then generally flooded by automated bounces, Message Disposition Notifications (MDNs), and personal messages with complaints. The original Sieve "reject" action defined in RFC 3028 required use of MDNs for rejecting messages, thus contributing to the flood of Joe-job spam to victims of Joe-jobs. This memo updates the definition of the "reject" action to allow messages to be refused during the SMTP transaction, and defines the "ereject" action to require messages to be refused during the SMTP transaction, if possible. The "ereject" action is intended to replace the "reject" action wherever possible. The "ereject" action is similar to "reject", but will always favor protocol level message rejection. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-08.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-08.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-11-17071004.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAF8BwSk035771 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:11:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAF8BwK7035770; Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:11:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kalyani.oryx.com (kalyani.oryx.com [195.30.37.30]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAF8BgIH035747 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:11:53 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no) Received: from kalyani.oryx.com (localhost.oryx.com [127.0.0.1]) by kalyani.oryx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EB5B4AD4E; Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:11:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from arnt@oryx.com (HELO lochnagar.oryx.com) by kalyani.oryx.com (Archiveopteryx 3.1.0) with esmtp id 1226736698-39909-1/6/1 (10 recipients); Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:11:38 +0100 Message-Id: <9O49/H8OY9gY4yzmiEfHDA.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:10:55 +0100 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject (Sieve Email Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions) to Proposed Standard Cc: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Matthew Elvey <sieve3@matthew.elvey.com>, Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx>, Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, Spencer Dawkins <spencer@wonderhamster.org>, Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.palo-alto.ca.us> References: <20080727120256.E26073A68B7@core3.amsl.com> <047b01c8fbc8$2034eeb0$ad600240@china.huawei.com> <1CB0C03F-F151-465D-B712-4DF9F5BF0484@serendipity.cx> <8B46079227BA4418A71C0EA6F31BDDDA@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <8B46079227BA4418A71C0EA6F31BDDDA@china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Spencer Dawkins writes: > The great thing about last call review comments is that you can "do > the right thing", but ... I may not have been clear, but what I was > saying was that I don't know what "refuse delivery over protocol" > actually refers to. Is this "refuse delivery over SMTP protocol"? > That's all I was asking... I wasn't trying to talk you out of "over > protocol", just being a little clearer what you were saying. Maybe "refuse delivery within the mail transmission protocol", perhaps adding "(typically SMTP or LMTP)". Arnt Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAEKecGv009409 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:40:38 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAEKechx009408; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:40:38 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.serendipity.cx (serendipity.palo-alto.ca.us [66.92.2.87]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAEKeRLZ009398 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:40:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from aaron@serendipity.cx) Received: from [192.168.64.64] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.serendipity.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A82E1F9E; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:41:29 -0800 (PST) From: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> To: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@wonderhamster.org> In-Reply-To: <8B46079227BA4418A71C0EA6F31BDDDA@china.huawei.com> Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject (Sieve Email Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions) to Proposed Standard X-Priority: 3 References: <20080727120256.E26073A68B7@core3.amsl.com> <047b01c8fbc8$2034eeb0$ad600240@china.huawei.com> <1CB0C03F-F151-465D-B712-4DF9F5BF0484@serendipity.cx> <8B46079227BA4418A71C0EA6F31BDDDA@china.huawei.com> Message-Id: <629B637F-B83D-4C47-9D3F-972DC9949C79@serendipity.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:40:26 -0800 Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org, Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.palo-alto.ca.us>, Matthew Elvey <sieve3@matthew.elvey.com>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> On Nov 14, 2008, at 9:35 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > Hi, Aaron, > > (dropping the IETF discussion list from the cc: list) > > I think we're good, except on this point: > >>> 2.2. Action reject >>> >>> The "reject" action cancels the implicit keep and refuses delivery >>> of >>> a message. The reason string is a UTF-8 [UTF-8] string specifying >>> the reason for refusal. Unlike the "ereject" action described >>> above, >>> this action would always favor preserving the exact text of the >>> refusal reason. Typically the "reject" action refuses delivery of a >>> message by sending back an MDN to the alleged sender (see >>> Section 2.2.1). However implementations MAY refuse delivery over >>> protocol (as detailed in Section 2.5), if and only if all of the >>> >>> Spencer (clarity): "refuse delivery over protocol" reads roughly >>> to me. is there an adjective for "protocol" that might make this >>> sentence clearer? i'm not sure that "over protocol" is even >>> required - is it? if not, you could just delete the two words. >> >> The phrase "over protocol", or some equivalent, is crucial because >> the meaning of "refuse" is not as clear as anybody has hoped. I >> prefer to leave the text as it is. > > The great thing about last call review comments is that you can "do > the right thing", but ... I may not have been clear, but what I was > saying was that I don't know what "refuse delivery over protocol" > actually refers to. Is this "refuse delivery over SMTP protocol"? > That's all I was asking... I wasn't trying to talk you out of "over > protocol", just being a little clearer what you were saying. Aha, I get what you mean now. Will update the document. > > Do the right thing, of course. :-) > Thanks :-) Aaron Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAEHaENN099033 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:36:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAEHaEAp099032; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:36:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAEHa3op098999 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:36:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from spencer@wonderhamster.org) Received: from S73602b (w173.z064002096.dfw-tx.dsl.cnc.net [64.2.96.173]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus1) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKpCa-1L12aB0Mg1-0008D8; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:35:56 -0500 Message-ID: <8B46079227BA4418A71C0EA6F31BDDDA@china.huawei.com> From: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@wonderhamster.org> To: "Aaron Stone" <aaron@serendipity.cx> Cc: <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>, "Cyrus Daboo" <cyrus@daboo.name>, "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@osafoundation.org>, "Aaron Stone" <aaron@serendipity.palo-alto.ca.us>, "Matthew Elvey" <sieve3@matthew.elvey.com>, "General Area Review Team" <gen-art@ietf.org> References: <20080727120256.E26073A68B7@core3.amsl.com> <047b01c8fbc8$2034eeb0$ad600240@china.huawei.com> <1CB0C03F-F151-465D-B712-4DF9F5BF0484@serendipity.cx> Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject (Sieve Email Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions) to Proposed Standard Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:35:28 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+gVv6to3+yAawyushfn263p7LG2iIO06ei1/c Qsi7Lnineh5vlSvHuLUvJSSDSeADoV+zcZ+b/blkCGzQewUFH9 f9h9P9tAAA9Xc0zwpm/4IheUh4DOsZXIH7xxsUwG3ASender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Hi, Aaron, (dropping the IETF discussion list from the cc: list) I think we're good, except on this point: >> 2.2. Action reject >> >> The "reject" action cancels the implicit keep and refuses delivery of >> a message. The reason string is a UTF-8 [UTF-8] string specifying >> the reason for refusal. Unlike the "ereject" action described above, >> this action would always favor preserving the exact text of the >> refusal reason. Typically the "reject" action refuses delivery of a >> message by sending back an MDN to the alleged sender (see >> Section 2.2.1). However implementations MAY refuse delivery over >> protocol (as detailed in Section 2.5), if and only if all of the >> >> Spencer (clarity): "refuse delivery over protocol" reads roughly to me. >> is there an adjective for "protocol" that might make this sentence >> clearer? i'm not sure that "over protocol" is even required - is it? if >> not, you could just delete the two words. > > The phrase "over protocol", or some equivalent, is crucial because the > meaning of "refuse" is not as clear as anybody has hoped. I prefer to > leave the text as it is. The great thing about last call review comments is that you can "do the right thing", but ... I may not have been clear, but what I was saying was that I don't know what "refuse delivery over protocol" actually refers to. Is this "refuse delivery over SMTP protocol"? That's all I was asking... I wasn't trying to talk you out of "over protocol", just being a little clearer what you were saying. Do the right thing, of course. :-) Thanks, Spencer Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAEESxEf088194 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:28:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAEESxb4088193; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:28:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.serendipity.cx (serendipity.palo-alto.ca.us [66.92.2.87]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAEESvPV088185 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:28:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from aaron@serendipity.cx) Received: from 68-27-237-112.pools.spcsdns.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.serendipity.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2C0D1F9E; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:29:55 -0800 (PST) From: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> To: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@wonderhamster.org> In-Reply-To: <047b01c8fbc8$2034eeb0$ad600240@china.huawei.com> Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject (Sieve Email Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions) to Proposed Standard X-Priority: 3 References: <20080727120256.E26073A68B7@core3.amsl.com> <047b01c8fbc8$2034eeb0$ad600240@china.huawei.com> Message-Id: <1CB0C03F-F151-465D-B712-4DF9F5BF0484@serendipity.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:27:45 -0800 Cc: <ietf@ietf.org>, <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>, "General Area Review Team" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "Cyrus Daboo" <cyrus@daboo.name>, "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@osafoundation.org>, "Aaron Stone" <aaron@serendipity.palo-alto.ca.us>, "Matthew Elvey" <sieve3@matthew.elvey.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> My apologies for the extremely delayed reply to this review. I've at long last cleared enough time to get into the grist of the comments on this draft and prepare revision -08. On Aug 11, 2008, at 8:36 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see > http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html ). > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-07 > Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins > Review Date: 2008-08-10 > IETF LC End Date: 2008-08-10 (oops!) > IESG Telechat date: N/A > > Summary: Almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. I have > some clarity questions below, and two technical questions involving > 2119 language ... > > Comments: > > Abstract > > This memo updates the definition of the Sieve mail filtering language > "reject" extension, originally defined in RFC 3028. > > A "Joe-job" is a spam run forged to appear as though it came from an > > Spencer (clarity): I'm OK with the use of "joe-job" (or, at a > minimum, I'm OK with what you guys say it is), but there's not a > clear statement in the abstract that the update to 3028 is in > response to the "joe-job" practice. I'd suggest something like "... > originally defined in RFC 3028, because the definition in RFC 3028 > did not allow messages to be refused during the STMP transaction, > and experience has shown this to be valuable in response to "joe- > jobs"." I find that the paragraph reads pretty well already, and prefer not to change it. > > innocent party, who is then generally flooded by automated bounces, > Message Disposition Notifications (MDNs), and personal messages with > complaints. The original Sieve "reject" action defined in RFC 3028 > required use of MDNs for rejecting messages, thus contributing to the > flood of Joe-job spam to victims of Joe-jobs. > > This memo updates the definition of the "reject" action to allow > messages to be refused during the SMTP transaction, and defines the > "ereject" action to require messages to be refused during the SMTP > transaction, if possible. > > The "ereject" action is intended to replace the "reject" action > wherever possible. > > Spencer (clarity): a LOT later in the document, the following text > appears: "The "ereject" action is similar to "reject", but will > always favor protocol level message rejection". That's a really > helpful summary - I'd like to see something like that much earlier > in the document, maybe here. Abstract modified: """ The "ereject" action is intended to replace the "reject" action wherever possible. The "ereject" action is similar to "reject", but will always favor protocol level message rejection. """ > > > 1. Introduction > > The Sieve mail filtering language [SIEVEBIS], as originally defined > in RFC 3028 [SIEVE], specified that the "reject" action shall discard > a message and send a Message Disposition Notification [MDN] to the > envelope sender along with an explanatory message. RFC 5228 > [SIEVEBIS] does not define any reject action, hence the purpose of > this document. > > Spencer (clarity): hmm. I'm almost sure that "The Sieve mail > filtering language [SIEVEBIS]" was NOT "originally defined in RFC > 3028 [SIEVE]"... :-) If you drop the first [SIEVEBIS] reference in > this sentence, I think it's correct. > Modified as suggested. > Spencer (clarity): It's not particularly easy for me to understand > this paragraph, given that SIEVEBIS is used as the reference for > "RFC 5228" in the last sentence. I might suggest "the updated Sieve > mail filtering language [SIEVEBIS] does not define any reject > action ..." > Modified mostly suggested. > This document updates the definition of the "reject" action to permit > refusal of the message during the SMTP transaction, if possible, and > defines a new "ereject" action to require refusal of the message > during the SMTP transaction, if possible. > > Spencer (clarity): a LOT later in the document, the following text > appears: "The "ereject" action is similar to "reject", but will > always favor protocol level message rejection". That's a really > helpful summary - I'd like to see something like that much earlier > in the document, maybe here. Modified in the abstract, I think the text in the introduction is sufficiently clear. > > Implementations are further encouraged to use spam-detection systems > to determine the level of risk associated with sending an MDN, and > this document allows implementations to silently drop the MDN if the > rejected message is deemed to be likely spam. > > Further discussion highlighting the risks of generating MDNs and the > benefits of protocol-level refusal can be found in [Joe-DoS]. > > 2.1.1. Rejecting a message at the SMTP/LMTP protocol level > > Sieve implementations that are able to reject messages at the SMTP/ > LMTP level MUST do so and SHOULD use the 550 response code. Note > > Spencer (technical): since rejection is a MUST, I'd expect to see > guidance about why using 550 might not be the right thing to do > ("why is this a SHOULD?"). There's some text at the bottom of 2.5 > about using 4XX first, but it should appear here, I think. > There may be reasons to use other response codes, hence the SHOULD. > that if a message is arriving over SMTP and has multiple recipients, > some of whom have accepted the message, Section 2.1.2 defines how to > reject such a message. > > 2.1.2. Rejecting a message by sending a DSN > > An implementation may receive a message via SMTP that has more than > one RCPT TO that has been accepted by the server, and at least one > but not all of them are refusing delivery (whether the refusal is > caused by a Sieve "ereject" action or for some other reason). In > this case, the server MUST accept the message and generate DSNs for > all recipients that are refusing it. Note that this exception does > not apply to LMTP, as LMTP is able to reject messages on a per- > recipient basis. (However, the LMTP client may then have no choice > but to generate a DSN to report the error, which may result in > blowback.) > > Spencer (clarity): "blowback" isn't defined (yet, at least). The word "blowback" now has an earlier use in the document, in the context of "blowback spam", which I believe makes the meaning clear. > > 2.2. Action reject > > The "reject" action cancels the implicit keep and refuses delivery of > a message. The reason string is a UTF-8 [UTF-8] string specifying > the reason for refusal. Unlike the "ereject" action described above, > this action would always favor preserving the exact text of the > refusal reason. Typically the "reject" action refuses delivery of a > message by sending back an MDN to the alleged sender (see > Section 2.2.1). However implementations MAY refuse delivery over > protocol (as detailed in Section 2.5), if and only if all of the > > Spencer (clarity): "refuse delivery over protocol" reads roughly to > me. is there an adjective for "protocol" that might make this > sentence clearer? i'm not sure that "over protocol" is even required > - is it? if not, you could just delete the two words. The phrase "over protocol", or some equivalent, is crucial because the meaning of "refuse" is not as clear as anybody has hoped. I prefer to leave the text as it is. > > following conditions are true: > > Example: > require ["reject"]; > > if size :over 100K { > reject text: > Your message is to big. If you want to send me a big attachment, > > Spencer (nit): s/to/too/ :-) Just leaving work for the RFC Editor... ;-) > > 2.3. Silent upgrade from reject to ereject > > Implementations MUST NOT silently upgrade reject actions to ereject > actions, however user interfaces may change the specific action > underlying a descriptive representation, thereby effecting a silent > upgrade of sorts. > > Spencer (technical): ??? I may not understand the point here, but > from the user's point of view, the requirement seems religious - > protocol implementations are prohibited from silently upgrading, but > user interfaces aren't, and the effect on the rejected e-mail, from > the user's perspective, is the same, isn't it? Or is this talking > about "silently upgrading reject actions" without making sure that > the other side is ereject-capable? The script must be interpreted as written, no upgrades allowed by interpreters. A user-interface might be used that generated a sieve script, however. Such a UI may have a section titled "Reject messages if they: [bunch of user check boxes...]". In such a situation, the user-interface is feeding a script generator. The output of that script generator in version 1 of the application might be "reject", and we're suggesting that it is acceptable and encouraged for version 2 of the app to generate scripts with "ereject" instead. > ----- Original Message ----- From: "The IESG" <iesg- > secretary@ietf.org> > To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org> > Cc: <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 7:02 AM > Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject (Sieve Email > Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions) to Proposed Standard > > >> >> The IESG has received a request from the Sieve Mail Filtering >> Language >> WG (sieve) to consider the following document: >> >> - 'Sieve Email Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions ' >> <draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-07.txt> as a Proposed Standard >> >> This document has a normative reference to RFC 2033 which documents >> LMTP, >> Local Mail Transfor Protocol. Support for LMTP is not required for >> servers supporting the mechanisms in this specification. The >> procedure of RFC 3967 is applied in this last call to approve the >> downward reference. >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to >> the >> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2008-08-10. Exceptionally, >> comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please >> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >> >> The file can be obtained via >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-07.txt >> >> >> IESG discussion can be tracked via >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag141&rfc_flag=0 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IETF-Announce mailing list >> IETF-Announce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > > Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAEEQULH088087 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:26:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAEEQU1m088086; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:26:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.serendipity.cx (serendipity.palo-alto.ca.us [66.92.2.87]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAEEQJOK088074 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:26:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from aaron@serendipity.cx) Received: from 68-27-237-112.pools.spcsdns.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.serendipity.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 982751F9E; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:27:17 -0800 (PST) Cc: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@wonderhamster.org>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.palo-alto.ca.us>, Matthew Elvey <sieve3@matthew.elvey.com>, iesg@iesg.org Message-Id: <920B7676-18CC-4FFE-8766-D0C293C17DDB@serendipity.cx> From: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <491D7EF4.60402@isode.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject (Sieve Email Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions) to Proposed Standard Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:26:15 -0800 References: <20080727120256.E26073A68B7@core3.amsl.com> <047b01c8fbc8$2034eeb0$ad600240@china.huawei.com> <491D7EF4.60402@isode.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Me too! :-( I'm about to send out a pile of responses, and I've updated the draft to include the DISCUSS and LC wording changes suggested in September. Document is here: http://sodabrew.com/ietf/draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-08.txt Diffs from -07 are here: http://sodabrew.com/ietf/draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-08-from-7.diff.html Many thanks, Aaron On Nov 14, 2008, at 5:36 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Hi Spencer, > My apologies for replying to this message so late, but I was hoping > that the main editor would reply first ;-). > > Spencer Dawkins wrote: > >> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) >> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see >> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html ). >> >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >> you may receive. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-07 >> Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins >> Review Date: 2008-08-10 >> IETF LC End Date: 2008-08-10 (oops!) >> IESG Telechat date: N/A >> >> Summary: Almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. I >> have some clarity questions below, and two technical questions >> involving 2119 language ... >> >> Comments: >> >> Abstract >> >> This memo updates the definition of the Sieve mail filtering >> language >> "reject" extension, originally defined in RFC 3028. >> >> A "Joe-job" is a spam run forged to appear as though it came from an >> >> Spencer (clarity): I'm OK with the use of "joe-job" (or, at a >> minimum, I'm OK with what you guys say it is), but there's not a >> clear statement in the abstract that the update to 3028 is in >> response to the "joe-job" practice. I'd suggest something like "... >> originally defined in RFC 3028, because the definition in RFC 3028 >> did not allow messages to be refused during the STMP transaction, >> and experience has shown this to be valuable in response to "joe- >> jobs"." > > Sounds good to me. > >> innocent party, who is then generally flooded by automated bounces, >> Message Disposition Notifications (MDNs), and personal messages with >> complaints. The original Sieve "reject" action defined in RFC 3028 >> required use of MDNs for rejecting messages, thus contributing to >> the >> flood of Joe-job spam to victims of Joe-jobs. >> >> This memo updates the definition of the "reject" action to allow >> messages to be refused during the SMTP transaction, and defines the >> "ereject" action to require messages to be refused during the SMTP >> transaction, if possible. >> >> The "ereject" action is intended to replace the "reject" action >> wherever possible. >> >> Spencer (clarity): a LOT later in the document, the following text >> appears: "The "ereject" action is similar to "reject", but will >> always favor protocol level message rejection". That's a really >> helpful summary - I'd like to see something like that much earlier >> in the document, maybe here. > > Ok. > >> 1. Introduction >> >> The Sieve mail filtering language [SIEVEBIS], as originally defined >> in RFC 3028 [SIEVE], specified that the "reject" action shall >> discard >> a message and send a Message Disposition Notification [MDN] to the >> envelope sender along with an explanatory message. RFC 5228 >> [SIEVEBIS] does not define any reject action, hence the purpose of >> this document. >> >> Spencer (clarity): hmm. I'm almost sure that "The Sieve mail >> filtering language [SIEVEBIS]" was NOT "originally defined in RFC >> 3028 [SIEVE]"... :-) If you drop the first [SIEVEBIS] reference in >> this sentence, I think it's correct. > > Good point. > >> Spencer (clarity): It's not particularly easy for me to understand >> this paragraph, given that SIEVEBIS is used as the reference for >> "RFC 5228" in the last sentence. I might suggest "the updated Sieve >> mail filtering language [SIEVEBIS] does not define any reject >> action ..." > > Ok. > >> This document updates the definition of the "reject" action to >> permit >> refusal of the message during the SMTP transaction, if possible, and >> defines a new "ereject" action to require refusal of the message >> during the SMTP transaction, if possible. >> >> Spencer (clarity): a LOT later in the document, the following text >> appears: "The "ereject" action is similar to "reject", but will >> always favor protocol level message rejection". That's a really >> helpful summary - I'd like to see something like that much earlier >> in the document, maybe here. > > Ok. > >> Implementations are further encouraged to use spam-detection systems >> to determine the level of risk associated with sending an MDN, and >> this document allows implementations to silently drop the MDN if the >> rejected message is deemed to be likely spam. >> >> Further discussion highlighting the risks of generating MDNs and the >> benefits of protocol-level refusal can be found in [Joe-DoS]. >> >> 2.1.1. Rejecting a message at the SMTP/LMTP protocol level >> >> Sieve implementations that are able to reject messages at the SMTP/ >> LMTP level MUST do so and SHOULD use the 550 response code. Note >> >> Spencer (technical): since rejection is a MUST, I'd expect to see >> guidance about why using 550 might not be the right thing to do >> ("why is this a SHOULD?"). > > Actually the SHOULD refers to use of other 5XX response codes. Any > suggestions how to make this clearer? Maybe change the first > sentence to read: > > Sieve implementations that are able to reject messages at the SMTP/ > LMTP level MUST do so using an 4XX or 5XX response code and SHOULD > use the 550 response code. > >> There's some text at the bottom of 2.5 about using 4XX first, but >> it should appear here, I think. > > I think you are referring to the following text: > > If a Sieve implementation that supports "ereject" does not wish to > immediately disclose the reason for rejection (for example, that it > detected spam), it may delay immediately sending of the 550 error > code by sending a 4XX error code on the first attempt to receive the > message. > > While this text can be copied to the section 2.1.1, I think the > updated sentence above is clear enough. > >> that if a message is arriving over SMTP and has multiple recipients, >> some of whom have accepted the message, Section 2.1.2 defines how to >> reject such a message. >> >> 2.1.2. Rejecting a message by sending a DSN >> >> An implementation may receive a message via SMTP that has more than >> one RCPT TO that has been accepted by the server, and at least one >> but not all of them are refusing delivery (whether the refusal is >> caused by a Sieve "ereject" action or for some other reason). In >> this case, the server MUST accept the message and generate DSNs for >> all recipients that are refusing it. Note that this exception does >> not apply to LMTP, as LMTP is able to reject messages on a per- >> recipient basis. (However, the LMTP client may then have no choice >> but to generate a DSN to report the error, which may result in >> blowback.) >> >> Spencer (clarity): "blowback" isn't defined (yet, at least). > > Ok, we will fix. > >> 2.2. Action reject >> >> The "reject" action cancels the implicit keep and refuses delivery >> of >> a message. The reason string is a UTF-8 [UTF-8] string specifying >> the reason for refusal. Unlike the "ereject" action described >> above, >> this action would always favor preserving the exact text of the >> refusal reason. Typically the "reject" action refuses delivery of a >> message by sending back an MDN to the alleged sender (see >> Section 2.2.1). However implementations MAY refuse delivery over >> protocol (as detailed in Section 2.5), if and only if all of the >> >> Spencer (clarity): "refuse delivery over protocol" reads roughly to >> me. is there an adjective for "protocol" that might make this >> sentence clearer? i'm not sure that "over protocol" is even >> required - is it? > > It emphasizes that this should happen during delivery, not after it > (as with MDN generation). > >> if not, you could just delete the two words. >> >> following conditions are true: >> >> Example: >> require ["reject"]; >> >> if size :over 100K { >> reject text: >> Your message is to big. If you want to send me a big attachment, >> >> Spencer (nit): s/to/too/ :-) > > Thanks. > >> 2.3. Silent upgrade from reject to ereject >> >> Implementations MUST NOT silently upgrade reject actions to ereject >> actions, however user interfaces may change the specific action >> underlying a descriptive representation, thereby effecting a silent >> upgrade of sorts. >> >> Spencer (technical): ??? I may not understand the point here, but >> from the user's point of view, the requirement seems religious - >> protocol implementations are prohibited from silently upgrading, >> but user interfaces aren't, and the effect on the rejected e-mail, >> from the user's perspective, is the same, isn't it? > > It might or might not be the same from user's perspective. > Some users only care that the message is rejected, other users care > that their rejection reason get sent correctly to the other end. > >> Or is this talking about "silently upgrading reject actions" >> without making sure that the other side is ereject-capable? > > I am not sure what do you call "the other side" in this case. Sieve > engine or end user who sent the message being rejected? > > Anyway I do agree that this sentence reads awkwardly. It is trying > to say 2 things: > 1). Silently upgrading a Sieve script exposed to the user is a bad > thing, because it might change rejection behavior in an expected (to > the script owner) way. > 2). But if the reject action is not exposed directly to the user > (e.g. if it is hidden behind some kind of filtering rule UI that > never shows Sieve script to the user, then silently upgrading might > be Ok. > > Based on this let me try to rephrase this sentence: > > Implementations MUST NOT silently upgrade reject actions to ereject > actions in a Sieve script, because this might lead to unpleasant > change of > behavior not expected by the owner of the Sieve script. > However user interfaces that hide/don't present generated Sieve > scripts > from the user MAY change the specific action, as long as behavior > as far as the user is concerned hasn't changed. > > Is this better? > Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAEDbZ8O085078 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:37:36 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAEDbZ9a085077; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:37:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAEDbKaF085058 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:37:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [192.168.1.137] ((unknown) [75.146.152.44]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SR1=CQAJxTaY@rufus.isode.com>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:37:17 +0000 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <491D7EF4.60402@isode.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:36:52 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@wonderhamster.org> CC: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.palo-alto.ca.us>, Matthew Elvey <sieve3@matthew.elvey.com>, iesg@iesg.org Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject (Sieve Email Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions) to Proposed Standard References: <20080727120256.E26073A68B7@core3.amsl.com> <047b01c8fbc8$2034eeb0$ad600240@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <047b01c8fbc8$2034eeb0$ad600240@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Hi Spencer, My apologies for replying to this message so late, but I was hoping that the main editor would reply first ;-). Spencer Dawkins wrote: > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see > http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html ). > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-07 > Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins > Review Date: 2008-08-10 > IETF LC End Date: 2008-08-10 (oops!) > IESG Telechat date: N/A > > Summary: Almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. I have > some clarity questions below, and two technical questions involving > 2119 language ... > > Comments: > > Abstract > > This memo updates the definition of the Sieve mail filtering language > "reject" extension, originally defined in RFC 3028. > > A "Joe-job" is a spam run forged to appear as though it came from an > > Spencer (clarity): I'm OK with the use of "joe-job" (or, at a minimum, > I'm OK with what you guys say it is), but there's not a clear > statement in the abstract that the update to 3028 is in response to > the "joe-job" practice. I'd suggest something like "... originally > defined in RFC 3028, because the definition in RFC 3028 did not allow > messages to be refused during the STMP transaction, and experience has > shown this to be valuable in response to "joe-jobs"." Sounds good to me. > innocent party, who is then generally flooded by automated bounces, > Message Disposition Notifications (MDNs), and personal messages with > complaints. The original Sieve "reject" action defined in RFC 3028 > required use of MDNs for rejecting messages, thus contributing to the > flood of Joe-job spam to victims of Joe-jobs. > > This memo updates the definition of the "reject" action to allow > messages to be refused during the SMTP transaction, and defines the > "ereject" action to require messages to be refused during the SMTP > transaction, if possible. > > The "ereject" action is intended to replace the "reject" action > wherever possible. > > Spencer (clarity): a LOT later in the document, the following text > appears: "The "ereject" action is similar to "reject", but will always > favor protocol level message rejection". That's a really helpful > summary - I'd like to see something like that much earlier in the > document, maybe here. Ok. > 1. Introduction > > The Sieve mail filtering language [SIEVEBIS], as originally defined > in RFC 3028 [SIEVE], specified that the "reject" action shall discard > a message and send a Message Disposition Notification [MDN] to the > envelope sender along with an explanatory message. RFC 5228 > [SIEVEBIS] does not define any reject action, hence the purpose of > this document. > > Spencer (clarity): hmm. I'm almost sure that "The Sieve mail filtering > language [SIEVEBIS]" was NOT "originally defined in RFC 3028 > [SIEVE]"... :-) If you drop the first [SIEVEBIS] reference in this > sentence, I think it's correct. Good point. > Spencer (clarity): It's not particularly easy for me to understand > this paragraph, given that SIEVEBIS is used as the reference for "RFC > 5228" in the last sentence. I might suggest "the updated Sieve mail > filtering language [SIEVEBIS] does not define any reject action ..." Ok. > This document updates the definition of the "reject" action to permit > refusal of the message during the SMTP transaction, if possible, and > defines a new "ereject" action to require refusal of the message > during the SMTP transaction, if possible. > > Spencer (clarity): a LOT later in the document, the following text > appears: "The "ereject" action is similar to "reject", but will always > favor protocol level message rejection". That's a really helpful > summary - I'd like to see something like that much earlier in the > document, maybe here. Ok. > Implementations are further encouraged to use spam-detection systems > to determine the level of risk associated with sending an MDN, and > this document allows implementations to silently drop the MDN if the > rejected message is deemed to be likely spam. > > Further discussion highlighting the risks of generating MDNs and the > benefits of protocol-level refusal can be found in [Joe-DoS]. > > 2.1.1. Rejecting a message at the SMTP/LMTP protocol level > > Sieve implementations that are able to reject messages at the SMTP/ > LMTP level MUST do so and SHOULD use the 550 response code. Note > > Spencer (technical): since rejection is a MUST, I'd expect to see > guidance about why using 550 might not be the right thing to do ("why > is this a SHOULD?"). Actually the SHOULD refers to use of other 5XX response codes. Any suggestions how to make this clearer? Maybe change the first sentence to read: Sieve implementations that are able to reject messages at the SMTP/ LMTP level MUST do so using an 4XX or 5XX response code and SHOULD use the 550 response code. > There's some text at the bottom of 2.5 about using 4XX first, but it > should appear here, I think. I think you are referring to the following text: If a Sieve implementation that supports "ereject" does not wish to immediately disclose the reason for rejection (for example, that it detected spam), it may delay immediately sending of the 550 error code by sending a 4XX error code on the first attempt to receive the message. While this text can be copied to the section 2.1.1, I think the updated sentence above is clear enough. > that if a message is arriving over SMTP and has multiple recipients, > some of whom have accepted the message, Section 2.1.2 defines how to > reject such a message. > > 2.1.2. Rejecting a message by sending a DSN > > An implementation may receive a message via SMTP that has more than > one RCPT TO that has been accepted by the server, and at least one > but not all of them are refusing delivery (whether the refusal is > caused by a Sieve "ereject" action or for some other reason). In > this case, the server MUST accept the message and generate DSNs for > all recipients that are refusing it. Note that this exception does > not apply to LMTP, as LMTP is able to reject messages on a per- > recipient basis. (However, the LMTP client may then have no choice > but to generate a DSN to report the error, which may result in > blowback.) > > Spencer (clarity): "blowback" isn't defined (yet, at least). Ok, we will fix. > 2.2. Action reject > > The "reject" action cancels the implicit keep and refuses delivery of > a message. The reason string is a UTF-8 [UTF-8] string specifying > the reason for refusal. Unlike the "ereject" action described above, > this action would always favor preserving the exact text of the > refusal reason. Typically the "reject" action refuses delivery of a > message by sending back an MDN to the alleged sender (see > Section 2.2.1). However implementations MAY refuse delivery over > protocol (as detailed in Section 2.5), if and only if all of the > > Spencer (clarity): "refuse delivery over protocol" reads roughly to > me. is there an adjective for "protocol" that might make this sentence > clearer? i'm not sure that "over protocol" is even required - is it? It emphasizes that this should happen during delivery, not after it (as with MDN generation). > if not, you could just delete the two words. > > following conditions are true: > > Example: > require ["reject"]; > > if size :over 100K { > reject text: > Your message is to big. If you want to send me a big attachment, > > Spencer (nit): s/to/too/ :-) Thanks. > 2.3. Silent upgrade from reject to ereject > > Implementations MUST NOT silently upgrade reject actions to ereject > actions, however user interfaces may change the specific action > underlying a descriptive representation, thereby effecting a silent > upgrade of sorts. > > Spencer (technical): ??? I may not understand the point here, but from > the user's point of view, the requirement seems religious - protocol > implementations are prohibited from silently upgrading, but user > interfaces aren't, and the effect on the rejected e-mail, from the > user's perspective, is the same, isn't it? It might or might not be the same from user's perspective. Some users only care that the message is rejected, other users care that their rejection reason get sent correctly to the other end. > Or is this talking about "silently upgrading reject actions" without > making sure that the other side is ereject-capable? I am not sure what do you call "the other side" in this case. Sieve engine or end user who sent the message being rejected? Anyway I do agree that this sentence reads awkwardly. It is trying to say 2 things: 1). Silently upgrading a Sieve script exposed to the user is a bad thing, because it might change rejection behavior in an expected (to the script owner) way. 2). But if the reject action is not exposed directly to the user (e.g. if it is hidden behind some kind of filtering rule UI that never shows Sieve script to the user, then silently upgrading might be Ok. Based on this let me try to rephrase this sentence: Implementations MUST NOT silently upgrade reject actions to ereject actions in a Sieve script, because this might lead to unpleasant change of behavior not expected by the owner of the Sieve script. However user interfaces that hide/don't present generated Sieve scripts from the user MAY change the specific action, as long as behavior as far as the user is concerned hasn't changed. Is this better? Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAA4srXZ014837 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sun, 9 Nov 2008 21:54:53 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mAA4srkM014836; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 21:54:53 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAA4sera014828 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 21:54:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from ned.freed@mrochek.com) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01N1QLFU1LAO00OXPQ@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 20:54:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01N1OZRCN49S00MISX@mauve.mrochek.com>; Sun, 09 Nov 2008 20:54:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 20:52:54 -0800 (PST) From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Subject: Re: Implementations of draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-07 ? In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sat, 01 Nov 2008 13:57:41 -0500" <20081101185728.GN22979@excalibur.hozed.org> To: Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org> Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org, Matthew Elvey <matthew@elvey.com>, Cyrus Daboo <cdaboo@apple.com>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Message-id: <01N1QLFS3F9400MISX@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <20081101185728.GN22979@excalibur.hozed.org> Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> > Are there any Sieve implementations that follow draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-07? > I am quite interested in replacing my existing per-user SMTP-time > rejection mechanism based on courier-mta's mailfilter with something > that will hopefully wind up as a standard Sieve-based method. > I've seen reference to Sun's implementation.. Sun's Sieve implementation (which fully supports this specification) is an integral part of our messaging server product. It cannot be used as a separate component. > is this available as open > source, or as a proprietary product? At present it is proprietary. Ned Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA9JhC6Z016420 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sun, 9 Nov 2008 12:43:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mA9JhCjY016419; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 12:43:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from jackfruit.srv.cs.cmu.edu (JACKFRUIT.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.201.16]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA9JgxlI016388 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verifyúIL) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 12:43:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from jhutz@cmu.edu) Received: from atlantis-home.pc.cs.cmu.edu (pool-71-240-109-139.pitt.east.verizon.net [71.240.109.139] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by jackfruit.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id mA9Jg0S5020908 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sun, 9 Nov 2008 14:42:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 14:42:00 -0500 From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl> cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org, jhutz@cmu.edu Subject: Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-01.txt (review) Message-ID: <37F2A430F9CC5554F147C5F0@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu> In-Reply-To: <4915CD8F.6000300@isode.com> References: <490CA45B.7080001@isode.com> <4912D0BC.4000008@rename-it.nl> <4915CD8F.6000300@isode.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.201.16 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> --On Saturday, November 08, 2008 05:34:07 PM +0000 Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote: > > Hi Stephan, > I am responding to the rest of your comments: > > Stephan Bosch wrote: > >> 2.1: > > [...] > >> Why SCRAM? > > I am glad that somebody has noticed :-). > > I might be too ambitious in this case: I would like to require a SASL > mechanism that doesn't pass password to the server (like SASL PLAIN) and > can be used without TLS. DIGEST-MD5 mechanism would have been my > preferred mechanism a couple of years ago. But the current SASL WG > thinking is that it has too many interop issues and is too hard to > implement. That is why I have SCRAM in the document. > > So I think now is good time for having a discussion about which > mandatory-to-implement SASL mechanism we should have in ManageSieve. For > short term and medium term (3 years). I think perhaps the right answer, for ManageSieve and for many other protocols, is to require - clients MUST implement both PLAIN and FOO - servers MUST implement at least one of PLAIN or FOO where FOO is some mechanism with the properties you describe. The problem is that there are a wide variety of underlying authentication services that people might want to deploy which can work with PLAIN but not with any of the mechanisms that are candidates for FOO. Examples include Kerberos password validation (used where the client has no Kerberos support), RSA SecurID, and OTP mechanisms such as that described in RFC2289. -- Jeff Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA8IPxvj064985 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sat, 8 Nov 2008 11:25:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mA8IPxnw064984; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 11:25:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA8IPvxs064978 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 11:25:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.2.135] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SRXZsgAJxYfU@rufus.isode.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 18:25:56 +0000 Message-ID: <4915D998.2050209@isode.com> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:25:28 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl> CC: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-01.txt (review) References: <490CA45B.7080001@isode.com> <4912D0BC.4000008@rename-it.nl> In-Reply-To: <4912D0BC.4000008@rename-it.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Hi Stephan, Stephan Bosch wrote: > 1.3: > > - Use of example with 'the QUOTA/MAXSCRIPTS response' code is > confusing. MAXSCRIPTS is not part of the standard, but the example > does not mention that explicitly. Also, I can imagine that such > detailed response can have some merit. So, why is it not included in > the standard along with something like MAXSIZE? I've missed that comment somehow. Yes, I agree that it would be worth adding QUOTA/MAXSCRIPTS (the maximum number of per-user scripts) and QUOTA/MAXSIZE (maximum script size), so I will add them to the document. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA8HYdRa062202 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sat, 8 Nov 2008 10:34:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mA8HYdYq062201; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 10:34:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA8HYcBO062195 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 10:34:38 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [92.40.159.253] (92.40.159.253.sub.mbb.three.co.uk [92.40.159.253]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SRXNqwAJxWGO@rufus.isode.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 17:34:36 +0000 Message-ID: <4915CD8F.6000300@isode.com> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 17:34:07 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl> CC: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-01.txt (review) References: <490CA45B.7080001@isode.com> <4912D0BC.4000008@rename-it.nl> In-Reply-To: <4912D0BC.4000008@rename-it.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Hi Stephan, I am responding to the rest of your comments: Stephan Bosch wrote: > 2.1: [...] > Why SCRAM? I am glad that somebody has noticed :-). I might be too ambitious in this case: I would like to require a SASL mechanism that doesn't pass password to the server (like SASL PLAIN) and can be used without TLS. DIGEST-MD5 mechanism would have been my preferred mechanism a couple of years ago. But the current SASL WG thinking is that it has too many interop issues and is too hard to implement. That is why I have SCRAM in the document. So I think now is good time for having a discussion about which mandatory-to-implement SASL mechanism we should have in ManageSieve. For short term and medium term (3 years). [...] > 2.11.3: > > - NOOP: why expect a NO response from older servers? It is advertised > as a capability; if it is not advertised, don't issue the NOOP command. Right. I've removed the following sentence: Older servers may not understand the NOOP command and robust clients SHOULD be prepared to receive a NO response. [...] > General: > - The described protocol is both referred to as "ManageSieve" and > "Manage Sieve" (e.g. IANA Considerations) Ok, I've changed "Manage Sieve" to "ManageSieve" everywhere in the document. > I hope this review is useful. I'll try to update my implementation to > match the most recent changes in the coming week or so. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA8Gurr5060434 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:56:53 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mA8GurW6060432; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:56:53 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA8GupqN060423 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:56:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [92.40.159.253] (92.40.159.253.sub.mbb.three.co.uk [92.40.159.253]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SRXEzwAJxTGH@rufus.isode.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 16:56:49 +0000 Message-ID: <4915C4B7.5050501@isode.com> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 16:56:23 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: WGLC on draft-melnikov-sieve-imapext-metadata-04.tx MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Folks, with my co-chair hat on I would like to start the Sieve Working Group Last Call for the following document: The SIEVE mail filtering language - extension for accessing mailbox metadata <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-melnikov-sieve-imapext-metadata-04.txt> The Working Group Last Call for this document starts on November 10th and will end on November 28th (so it is almost 3 weeks, so that the IETF meeting in Dublin is covered). Please send any comments to the Sieve mailing list or directly to me. If you chose to do the latter, please CC Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>. Reviews that found no issues are also welcomed, so if you review the document and find it acceptable, please let the mailing list/authors+chairs know as well. Thank you, Alexey, Sieve WG co-chairs Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA8G803f058450 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:08:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mA8G80vs058449; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:08:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA8G7xpR058439 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:07:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [92.40.159.253] (92.40.159.253.sub.mbb.three.co.uk [92.40.159.253]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SRW5XQAJxRF3@rufus.isode.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 16:07:57 +0000 Message-ID: <4915B94C.5080509@isode.com> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 16:07:40 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl> CC: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: ManageSieve: sieve: URIs and OWNER capability References: <490CA45B.7080001@isode.com> <4912D0BC.4000008@rename-it.nl> In-Reply-To: <4912D0BC.4000008@rename-it.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Hi Stephan, Thanks again for your detailed review. I think message I will reply to your question about the new OWNER capability: Stephan Bosch wrote: > - Explain the purpose of the OWNER capability. Common question would > be: clients already know their identity, so why advertise it as a > capability? Also, in my mind, listing status information in a > capability response seems hardly appropriate. I wanted to post a message on this change, but you were quicker than me. Chris Newman suggested in his original ManageSieve review 3 changes related to Sieve URIs: > * IMAP URLs made the mistake of confusing the identity used to > authenticate with the identity that owns the script. This makes IMAP > URLs cumbersome. I would strongly encourage a naming model that > separates the two and keeps the script owner explicit. For example: > > sieveurl-script = "sieve://" [ authority ] "/" owner "/" scriptname As per mailing list discussions a modified version of this syntax was adopted by the draft, so I've decided to address one of the 2 remaining issues: > Then two other changes would make this particularly useful: > 1. Allow a script name (at least in putscript) to be either a Sieve URI > or a local name. This allows, for example, a secretary to set the > script for her boss. > 2. Add a capability that advertises the owner name that applies to a > given managesieve session (this would be derived from the > authentication id). [I think Chris meant "authorization identity" above.] So, OWNER corresponds to 2). When using SASL authentication a client can authenticate as one person ("authentication identity"), but be allowed to act as another ("authorization identity"). OWNER is returning the latter. I have a weak preference for having the OWNER capability. So far I found a couple of reasons for it: Imagine you have a ManageSieve client that need to process several Sieve URIs (e.g. to update several scripts). The client would be able to compare the "owner" part of an URI against the value returned in the OWNER capability in order to decide if it needs to authenticate as another user before processing another script identified by a URI. I also think that the OWNER capability can be useful for debugging (i.e. for analyzing protocol trace logs). Of course this only helps if the client requests capabilities after authentication. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA8G5vm2058380 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:05:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mA8G5vVb058378; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:05:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA8G5jX2058366 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:05:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [92.40.159.253] (92.40.159.253.sub.mbb.three.co.uk [92.40.159.253]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SRW41gAJxU1r@rufus.isode.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 16:05:43 +0000 Message-ID: <4915B8BF.50608@isode.com> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 16:05:19 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-01.txt References: <490CA45B.7080001@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <490CA45B.7080001@isode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> So far I am aware of 2 open issues (not counting Stephan Bosch's comments) that need some discussion: 1). Should RENAME, NOOP and CHECKSCRIPT capabilities be merged into a single capability. (Personally I dislike capability proliferation). 2). Chris Newman has suggested to allow use of URIs in commands like PUTSCRIPT. Should this be done? If yes, should this be an extension? Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA6G4r0w010167 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Nov 2008 09:04:53 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mA6G4rFS010166; Thu, 6 Nov 2008 09:04:53 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA6G4q9N010159 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 6 Nov 2008 09:04:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [192.168.0.2] ((unknown) [62.3.217.253]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SRMVowAJxRpl@rufus.isode.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2008 16:04:51 +0000 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <49131581.6050903@isode.com> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:04:17 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl> CC: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-01.txt (review) References: <490CA45B.7080001@isode.com> <4912D0BC.4000008@rename-it.nl> In-Reply-To: <4912D0BC.4000008@rename-it.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Hi Stephan, Thank you for your review. I am quickly answering easy comments/questions and will followup on the rest later on. Stephan Bosch wrote: > Hello, > > Alexey Melnikov wrote: > >> The Working Group Last Call for this document starts on November 3rd >> and will end on November 21st (so it is almost 3 weeks, so that the >> IETF meeting in Dublin is covered). >> >> Please send any comments to the Sieve mailing list or directly to me. >> If you chose to do the latter, please CC Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>. >> Reviews that found no issues are also welcomed, so if you review the >> document and find it acceptable, please let the mailing >> list/authors+chairs know as well. > > Since this is the last call, I decided to do a full review of the > document. Thus far I have not implemented any of the recent > changes/additions to the document, so I may find other issues when I > do (hopefully before the 21st of November). > > My review is structured in a per-section manner. Comments include > typos, but also requests for clarification: > > 1.3: [...] > - Typos in explanation of NONEXISTENT and ALREADYEXISTS : > s/references/referenced. Fixed. > 1.7: > > - Example at the end of this section lists STARTTLS after > authentication, which is strange considering that STARTTLS is only > valid in a non-authenticated state. Right. I can add a text that listing STARTTLS capability after successful STARTTLS is a SHOULD NOT. Unless people prefer MUST NOT? > - Explain the purpose of the OWNER capability. Common question would > be: clients already know their identity, so why advertise it as a > capability? I will reply to this in a separate message. > Also, in my mind, listing status information in a capability response > seems hardly appropriate. The list of currently available SASL mechanisms is also status information (it might depend on whether TLS is on or not), so I think your argument is not entirely valid. > 2.1: > > - From text: "When both [TLS] and SASL security layers are in effect, > the TLS encoding MUST be applied (when sending data) after the SASL > encoding, regardless of the order in which the layers were > negotiated." Isn't this order fixed correctly already by the fact that > the STARTTLS command is only valid before authentication (= SASL and > any security layer it may install). I mean that I do not see how the > layers can be negotiated in a different order. Good point. This was cut&paste from another document. I've deleted part of the sentence that starts with "regardless". > - From text: "To ensure interoperability, client and server > implementations of this extension MUST implement the [SCRAM] SASL > mechanism." This sentence seems out of place. What extension? This should have been "To ensure interoperability, client and server implementations of the ManageSieve protocol ..." > Why SCRAM? I will reply to this separately. > 2.2.1: > > - Item 1, first sentence: s/than/then Fixed. > 2.6: > > - Clarify what is meant by syntax checking. In the strictest sense it > could mean that any script that complies with the basic grammar of the > Sieve language would pass. Command syntax, i.e. which arguments are > required/allowed, would then be ignored. Also, wouldn't it be > helpful/useful/desirable to include contextual checks here as well? > E.g. unknown/invalid comparators etc. IMHO, invalid/unknown comparator would be covered by syntactic checks. > I first encountered this distinction when discussing the ihave > extension to the Sieve language. I implicitly interpreted this > requirement as a full script check (i.e. as would be done for full > compilation), which seems overly restrictive when reading this > standard more carefully. You need to suggest specific text, especially if you want the document to describe interaction with ihave in more details. [...] > 2.11.2: > > - For clarity, mention that the CHECKSCRIPT command is in effect > identical to the PUTSCRIPT command when in ANONYMOUS Sieve script > verification mode. I am not sure that would add much clarity. I am almost tempted to add a reference in the other direction. The only thing stopping me is the fact that CHECKSCRIPT is an extension. [...] > 2.11.4: > > - Explain the use and merit of the UNAUTHENTICATE command. The only > merit I can think of is that reconnecting can cause some extra > overhead for setting up the connection and re-negotiating security/TLS > layers. Yes. > But is this time optimization worth complicating the protocol? I think the answer is yes. For a management client that tries to update Sieve scripts for several users the speed of reestablishing a ManageSieve connection might be non trivial. UNAUTHENTICATE command came out of discussion regarding SASL reauthentication in Dublin. Here is the message that motivated the whole discussion: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/msg04061.html> > Discussion item: who would be willing to implement this? I am willing to implement this in Isode's server. > I personally have no real problems with the addition of this command, > but I cannot imagine that I will ever want to implement it. Perhaps I > am overlooking something? Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA6FoSkm008333 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Nov 2008 08:50:38 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mA6FoSUa008332; Thu, 6 Nov 2008 08:50:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA6FoHFa008315 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 6 Nov 2008 08:50:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [192.168.0.2] ((unknown) [62.3.217.253]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SRMSNwAJxab6@rufus.isode.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:50:16 +0000 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <49131217.2000708@isode.com> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:49:43 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Proposed Sieve WG meeting agenda for Minneapolis MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Cyrus and I would like to suggest the following agenda for Minneapolis. Comments are welcome. ================================ Agenda Document status review (10 mins) WG Status review (10 mins) Mime Loops (draft-ietf-sieve-mime-loop-07.txt) (10 mins) Sieve Reject (draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-07.txt) (15 mins) iHave (draft-freed-sieve-ihave-03.txt) (15 mins) Notary (draft-freed-sieve-notary-01.txt) (10 mins) SIEVE in XML (expired:draft-freed-sieve-in-xml-01.txt) (10 mins) ManageSIEVE (draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt) (10 mins) METADATA (draft-melnikov-sieve-imapext-metadata-04.txt) (20 mins) ================================ Total: 110 mins Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA6BBfml081669 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Nov 2008 04:11:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mA6BBfZg081668; Thu, 6 Nov 2008 04:11:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from cola.rename-it.nl (cola.rename-it.nl [217.119.231.192]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA6BBSLl081654 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher®S256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 6 Nov 2008 04:11:40 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from stephan@rename-it.nl) Received: from wlan141072.mobiel.utwente.nl ([130.89.141.72] helo=[10.0.2.15]) by cola.rename-it.nl with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <stephan@rename-it.nl>) id 1Ky2dA-0005LQ-Ua; Thu, 06 Nov 2008 12:02:29 +0100 Message-ID: <4912D0BC.4000008@rename-it.nl> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 12:10:52 +0100 From: Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20080925) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> CC: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-01.txt (review) References: <490CA45B.7080001@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <490CA45B.7080001@isode.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RenameIT-MailScanner-VirusScan: Found to be clean X-RenameIT-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-2.207, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -0.40, AWL 0.79, BAYES_00 -2.60) X-RenameIT-MailScanner-From: stephan@rename-it.nl X-Spam-Status: No Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Hello, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > The Working Group Last Call for this document starts on November 3rd and > will end on November 21st (so it is almost 3 weeks, so that the IETF > meeting in Dublin is covered). > > Please send any comments to the Sieve mailing list or directly to me. If > you chose to do the latter, please CC Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>. > Reviews that found no issues are also welcomed, so if you review the > document and find it acceptable, please let the mailing > list/authors+chairs know as well. > Since this is the last call, I decided to do a full review of the document. Thus far I have not implemented any of the recent changes/additions to the document, so I may find other issues when I do (hopefully before the 21st of November). My review is structured in a per-section manner. Comments include typos, but also requests for clarification: 1.3: - Use of example with 'the QUOTA/MAXSCRIPTS response' code is confusing. MAXSCRIPTS is not part of the standard, but the example does not mention that explicitly. Also, I can imagine that such detailed response can have some merit. So, why is it not included in the standard along with something like MAXSIZE? - Typos in explanation of NONEXISTENT and ALREADYEXISTS : s/references/referenced. 1.7: - Example at the end of this section lists STARTTLS after authentication, which is strange considering that STARTTLS is only valid in a non-authenticated state. - Explain the purpose of the OWNER capability. Common question would be: clients already know their identity, so why advertise it as a capability? Also, in my mind, listing status information in a capability response seems hardly appropriate. 2.1: - From text: "When both [TLS] and SASL security layers are in effect, the TLS encoding MUST be applied (when sending data) after the SASL encoding, regardless of the order in which the layers were negotiated." Isn't this order fixed correctly already by the fact that the STARTTLS command is only valid before authentication(= SASL and any security layer it may install). I mean that I do not see how the layers can be negotiated in a different order. - From text: "To ensure interoperability, client and server implementations of this extension MUST implement the [SCRAM] SASL mechanism." This sentence seems out of place. What extension? Why SCRAM? 2.2.1: - Item 1, first sentence: s/than/then 2.6: - Clarify what is meant by syntax checking. In the strictest sense it could mean that any script that complies with the basic grammar of the Sieve language would pass. Command syntax, i.e. which arguments are required/allowed, would then be ignored. Also, wouldn't it be helpful/useful/desirable to include contextual checks here as well? E.g. unknown/invalid comparators etc. I first encountered this distinction when discussing the ihave extension to the Sieve language. I implicitly interpreted this requirement as a full script check (i.e. as would be done for full compilation), which seems overly restrictive when reading this standard more carefully. 2.11: - Naming of CHECKSCRIPT extension is not consistent with RENAME extension. To be consistent CHECK would be a better choice. (Yes, I am nitpicking, sorry) 2.11.2: - For clarity, mention that the CHECKSCRIPT command is in effect identical to the PUTSCRIPT command when in ANONYMOUS Sieve script verification mode. 2.11.3: - NOOP: why expect a NO response from older servers? It is advertised as a capability; if it is not advertised, don't issue the NOOP command. 2.11.4: - Explain the use and merit of the UNAUTHENTICATE command. The only merit I can think of is that reconnecting can cause some extra overhead for setting up the connection and re-negotiating security/TLS layers. But is this time optimization worth complicating the protocol? Discussion item: who would be willing to implement this? I personally have no real problems with the addition of this command, but I cannot imagine that I will ever want to implement it. Perhaps I am overlooking something? General: - The described protocol is both referred to as "ManageSieve" and "Manage Sieve" (e.g. IANA Considerations) I hope this review is useful. I'll try to update my implementation to match the most recent changes in the coming week or so. Kind regards, -- Stephan Bosch stephan@rename-it.nl Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA4ErqdG090291 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 07:53:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mA4Erq7S090290; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 07:53:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA4ErpNL090275 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 07:53:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [192.168.0.6] ((unknown) [62.3.217.253]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SRBh-wAJxTih@rufus.isode.com>; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 14:53:47 +0000 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <491061ED.5020100@isode.com> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:53:33 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Sieve WG meeting during the Minneapolis IETF MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> will be held on Monday, November 17 2008 at 17:40-19:30, Central Standard Time (which is UTC - 6 hours). Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA3MU0pe003199 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:30:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mA3MU08q003198; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:30:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [64.170.98.32]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA3MU035003187 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:30:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from root@core3.amsl.com) Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id B797E28C189; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 14:30:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-mime-loop-07.txt Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20081103223001.B797E28C189@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 14:30:01 -0800 (PST) Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Sieve Mail Filtering Language Working Group of the IETF. Title : Sieve Email Filtering: MIME part Tests, Iteration, Extraction, Replacement and Enclosure Author(s) : T. Hansen, C. Daboo Filename : draft-ietf-sieve-mime-loop-07.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2008-11-03 This document defines extensions to the Sieve email filtering language to permit analysis and manipulation of the MIME body parts of an email message. Note This document is being discussed on the MTA-FILTERS mailing list, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sieve-mime-loop-07.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-sieve-mime-loop-07.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-11-03142429.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA2G7RLX049373 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sun, 2 Nov 2008 09:07:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mA2G7RN2049372; Sun, 2 Nov 2008 09:07:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA2G7Fmx049350 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 2 Nov 2008 09:07:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [92.40.75.201] (92.40.75.201.sub.mbb.three.co.uk [92.40.75.201]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SQ3QLwAJxYdW@rufus.isode.com>; Sun, 2 Nov 2008 16:07:13 +0000 Message-ID: <490DD021.7060202@isode.com> Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 16:06:57 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Patrick Ben Koetter <p@state-of-mind.de> CC: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-01.txt References: <20081101190002.060E63A6A57@core3.amsl.com> <20081102123646.GA8658@state-of-mind.de> In-Reply-To: <20081102123646.GA8658@state-of-mind.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: >* Internet-Drafts@ietf.org <Internet-Drafts@ietf.org>: > > >>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. >>This draft is a work item of the Sieve Mail Filtering Language Working Group of the IETF. >> >> >> Title : A Protocol for Remotely Managing Sieve Scripts >> Author(s) : A. Melnikov, T. Martin >> Filename : draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-01.txt >> Pages : 48 >> Date : 2008-11-01 >> >> >I believe there's a typo in line 345 of draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-01.txt: > >"indended" should be "intended". > > Fixed, thanks. (also in 3 other places - cut & pasted the same text). Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA2Cb0Ts035563 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sun, 2 Nov 2008 05:37:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mA2Cb01g035562; Sun, 2 Nov 2008 05:37:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.state-of-mind.de (mail.state-of-mind.de [194.126.158.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA2CalD9035551 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verifyúIL) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 2 Nov 2008 05:36:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from p@state-of-mind.de) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.state-of-mind.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFDD182002F for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 2 Nov 2008 13:36:46 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=state-of-mind.de; s=mail0801; t25629406; bh=Eiuzd8fuaCW/+W1SJTeZFt/B0dDgsVYJnyXhyF nb1tQ=; hÚte:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:In-Reply-To; b=IrnPV9lhv/9D Ll1w6G/xtHdSewWgzFR1DyAbbc3rxMlTHeN0yk/YmDdyqEBJQo7Y541/zwvtZRv/5qo DKijExTUgp2PDMp8+k+OyvF/yzQCzLaro/BLsBrtkt1J4JaaJAkfOmE3KkBcVv8RXVf BmRJmxZgtn67V5ZbwrCzyCPA0X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at state-of-mind.de Received: from mail.state-of-mind.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.state-of-mind.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id cbFGg6wvvP+c for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 2 Nov 2008 13:36:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from state-of-mind.de (gw.state-of-mind.de [62.245.202.194]) by mail.state-of-mind.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 587DC820007 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 2 Nov 2008 13:36:46 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 13:36:46 +0100 From: Patrick Ben Koetter <p@state-of-mind.de> To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-01.txt Message-ID: <20081102123646.GA8658@state-of-mind.de> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org References: <20081101190002.060E63A6A57@core3.amsl.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20081101190002.060E63A6A57@core3.amsl.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> * Internet-Drafts@ietf.org <Internet-Drafts@ietf.org>: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Sieve Mail Filtering Language Working Group of the IETF. > > > Title : A Protocol for Remotely Managing Sieve Scripts > Author(s) : A. Melnikov, T. Martin > Filename : draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-01.txt > Pages : 48 > Date : 2008-11-01 > I believe there's a typo in line 345 of draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-01.txt: "indended" should be "intended". p@rick -- state of mind Agentur für Kommunikation, Design und Softwareentwicklung Patrick Koetter Tel: 089 45227227 Echinger Strasse 3 Fax: 089 45227226 85386 Eching Web: http://www.state-of-mind.de Amtsgericht München Partnerschaftsregister PR 563 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA1J01WQ073217 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sat, 1 Nov 2008 12:00:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mA1J01CF073216; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 12:00:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [64.170.98.32]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA1J01gs073194 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 12:00:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from root@core3.amsl.com) Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 060E63A6A57; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 12:00:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-01.txt Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20081101190002.060E63A6A57@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 12:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Sieve Mail Filtering Language Working Group of the IETF. Title : A Protocol for Remotely Managing Sieve Scripts Author(s) : A. Melnikov, T. Martin Filename : draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-01.txt Pages : 48 Date : 2008-11-01 Sieve scripts allow users to filter incoming email. Message stores are commonly sealed servers so users cannot log into them, yet users must be able to update their scripts on them. This document describes a protocol "ManageSieve" for securely managing Sieve scripts on a remote server. This protocol allows a user to have multiple scripts, and also alerts a user to syntactically flawed scripts. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-11-01114644.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA1Iw5G1072708 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sat, 1 Nov 2008 11:58:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mA1Iw5F1072707; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 11:58:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from excalibur.hozed.org (excalibur.hozed.org [209.234.73.43]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA1IvqSV072664 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 11:58:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from hozer@hozed.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 1000) by excalibur.hozed.org with local; Sat, 01 Nov 2008 13:57:41 -0500 id 00005511.490CA6A5.00002B1B Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 13:57:41 -0500 From: Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org> To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Cc: Matthew Elvey <matthew@elvey.com>, Cyrus Daboo <cdaboo@apple.com>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Subject: Implementations of draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-07 ? Message-ID: <20081101185728.GN22979@excalibur.hozed.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Are there any Sieve implementations that follow draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-07? I am quite interested in replacing my existing per-user SMTP-time rejection mechanism based on courier-mta's mailfilter with something that will hopefully wind up as a standard Sieve-based method. I've seen reference to Sun's implementation.. is this available as open source, or as a proprietary product? Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA1ImSqE070895 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sat, 1 Nov 2008 11:48:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mA1ImSpX070894; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 11:48:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA1ImGCv070833 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 11:48:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.2.129] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SQykbgAJxZFc@rufus.isode.com>; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 18:48:15 +0000 Message-ID: <490CA45B.7080001@isode.com> Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 18:47:55 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: WGLC on draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-01.txt MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Hi folks, draft-martin-managesieve already had an informal WG-like last call (before the Sieve WG rechartered). I've just posted draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-01.txt that I believe addressed all major outstanding issues. Because the list of changes to the document is long, as one of the authors I think it is worth to have another WGLC to verify that they are Ok with the WG. Now, with my co-chair hat on: This message officially starts the Sieve Working Group Last Call for the following document: A Protocol for Remotely Managing Sieve Scripts <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-01.txt> The Working Group Last Call for this document starts on November 3rd and will end on November 21st (so it is almost 3 weeks, so that the IETF meeting in Dublin is covered). Please send any comments to the Sieve mailing list or directly to me. If you chose to do the latter, please CC Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>. Reviews that found no issues are also welcomed, so if you review the document and find it acceptable, please let the mailing list/authors+chairs know as well. Thank you, Alexey, Sieve WG co-chairs Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA1HYA1r056164 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sat, 1 Nov 2008 10:34:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mA1HYAo1056163; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 10:34:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA1HY9ll056154 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 10:34:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.2.129] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SQyTDwAJxXX7@rufus.isode.com>; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 17:34:08 +0000 Message-ID: <490C9300.1000006@isode.com> Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:33:52 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Proposal to change sieve: URL syntax used by the ManageSieve protocol References: <48D63625.7040408@isode.com> <48D8B5E4.4010604@aegee.org> <48F0D595.1060203@isode.com> <490C91D7.7030408@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <490C91D7.7030408@isode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Alexey Melnikov wrote: > owner = 1*ochar > ;; %-encoded version of [IMAP4] authorization > ;; identity (owner) or "userid". > ;; Note that ASCII characters > ;; like "&" / "=", "/" and "?" MUST be %-encoded. > scriptname = 1*ochar > ;; %-encoded version of UTF-8 representation > ;; of the script name. > ;; Note that ASCII characters > ;; like "&" / "=", "/" and "?" MUST be %-encoded. Actually SP and ";" should be encoded as well, so I've updated 2 comments above. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA1HTEgX055182 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sat, 1 Nov 2008 10:29:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mA1HTE0l055181; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 10:29:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA1HTDWf055171 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 10:29:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.2.129] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SQyR5wAJxT3M@rufus.isode.com>; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 17:29:12 +0000 Message-ID: <490C91D7.7030408@isode.com> Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:28:55 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Proposal to change sieve: URL syntax used by the ManageSieve protocol References: <48D63625.7040408@isode.com> <48D8B5E4.4010604@aegee.org> <48F0D595.1060203@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <48F0D595.1060203@isode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Dilyan Palauzov wrote: > >>>> Section 3: >>>> >>>>> sieveurl-script = "sieve://" [ authority ] "/" scriptname >>>> >>>> * IMAP URLs made the mistake of confusing the identity used to >>>> authenticate with the identity that owns the script. This makes >>>> IMAP URLs cumbersome. I would strongly encourage a naming model >>>> that separates the two and keeps the script owner explicit. For >>>> example: >>>> >>>> sieveurl-script = "sieve://" [ authority ] "/" owner "/" scriptname >>> >> What about >> sieveurl-script = "sieve://" [ authority ] "/" [owner "/"] scriptname >> >> And missing [owner "/"] implies authentication ID = authorization ID > > This might work. But I think this would also require that any "/" in > the <owner> or <scriptname> be URL %-encoded. This shouldn't be a > problem for existing deployments, because I don't think use of "/" in > script names is common anyway (and some servers currently disallow it). Based on the mailing list feedback I've updated the draft to allow for optional <owner>. In order to simplify further extensions the new syntax requires that US-ASCII characters such as "&", "=", "/" and "?" are %-encoded as required by RFC 3986: sieveurl-script = "sieve://" [ authority ] "/" [owner "/"] scriptname sub-delims-sh = "!" / "$" / "'" / "(" / ")" / "*" / "+" / "," ;; Same as [URI-GEN] sub-delims, ;; but without ";", "&" and "=". uchar = unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims-sh ;; Same as [URI-GEN] ;; 'unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims', ;; but without ";", "&" and "=". ochar = uchar / ":" / "@" ;; Same as [URI-GEN] 'pchar' ;; but without ";", "&" and "=". owner = 1*ochar ;; %-encoded version of [IMAP4] authorization ;; identity (owner) or "userid". ;; Note that ASCII characters ;; like "&" / "=", "/" and "?" MUST be %-encoded. scriptname = 1*ochar ;; %-encoded version of UTF-8 representation ;; of the script name. ;; Note that ASCII characters ;; like "&" / "=", "/" and "?" MUST be %-encoded. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA1FQegW031244 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:26:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mA1FQev5031242; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:26:40 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA1FQRXs031184 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:26:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [92.40.195.196] (92.40.195.196.sub.mbb.three.co.uk [92.40.195.196]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SQx1JgAJxUAq@rufus.isode.com>; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 15:26:32 +0000 Message-ID: <490C4C97.5050800@isode.com> Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 12:33:27 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> CC: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-00.txt is to replace draft-martin-managesieve-12.txt References: <48FDB1DA.8030000@isode.com> <FLoKhIn3yrh8zQVEO0ZJSA.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> <48FDB6F4.3050709@isode.com> <TuKYKW8OXzrJoPApQsxN6Q.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> <F0E35790-33F3-409A-97AE-F94C9D39C87C@serendipity.cx> In-Reply-To: <F0E35790-33F3-409A-97AE-F94C9D39C87C@serendipity.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Aaron Stone wrote: > On Oct 21, 2008, at 4:20 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > >>>> A new command is the cleanest way. CHECKSCRIPT. >>> >>> I agree this is cleaner. But it has to be an extension (which is >>> fine in this case) >> >> My intuitive preference is to make an extension, say that server >> MUST implement it, explain that it is an extension only because past >> versions of the document didn't contain CHECKSCRIPT, and maybe put >> warnings into this extension. (I haven't looked at how you did >> warnings in today's draft.) > > +1 for a new mandatory command. Ok, I've added a new CHECKSCRIPT command, which is currently a new CHECKSCRIPT extension (but see my reply to Arnt about that). > Probably does need to be defined as an extension because there are a > number of extant implementations. I thought someone said that we're > breaking use of PUTSCRIPT for syntax validation, but I didn't see > where that happened in a (very) quick read of the draft. If we make a > change like that, I think it's reasonable to add CHECKSCRIPT without > advertising it. > > I'll note that the ABNF for PUTSCRIPT still allows a blank name: > > command-putscript = "PUTSCRIPT" SP sieve-name SP sieve-script > sieve-name = string > quoted = DQUOTE *1024QUOTED-CHAR DQUOTE ;; limited to 1024 octets > between the <">s I've fixed that in ABNF by introducing active-script-name (to be used by SETACTIVE command only) ABNF production and disallowing empty string in the sieve-name production. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA1FQe6J031243 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:26:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id mA1FQe7c031241; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:26:40 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA1FQRXr031184 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:26:38 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [92.40.195.196] (92.40.195.196.sub.mbb.three.co.uk [92.40.195.196]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SQx1IAAJxaQo@rufus.isode.com>; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 15:26:26 +0000 Message-ID: <490C4AB3.4030608@isode.com> Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 12:25:23 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> CC: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-00.txt is to replace draft-martin-managesieve-12.txt References: <48FDB1DA.8030000@isode.com> <FLoKhIn3yrh8zQVEO0ZJSA.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> <48FDB6F4.3050709@isode.com> <TuKYKW8OXzrJoPApQsxN6Q.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> In-Reply-To: <TuKYKW8OXzrJoPApQsxN6Q.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: >>> A new command is the cleanest way. CHECKSCRIPT. >> >> I agree this is cleaner. But it has to be an extension (which is fine >> in this case) > > My intuitive preference is to make an extension, say that server MUST > implement it, explain that it is an extension only because past > versions of the document didn't contain CHECKSCRIPT, Currently I have 3 extensions in the document: RENAMESCRIPT, NOOP and CHECKSCRIPT. I am wondering if we should bundle all 3 together and advertise a single capability for them. > and maybe put warnings into this extension. (I haven't looked at how > you did warnings in today's draft.) No need, as WARNINGS is a response code.
- managesieve: formats; :global; read-only; checksc… Дилян Палаузов
- Re: managesieve: formats; :global; read-only; che… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: managesieve: formats; :global; read-only; che… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: managesieve: formats; :global; read-only; che… Alexey Melnikov
- sieveurl-list-scripts += [owner "/"] Дилян Палаузов