Re: [sieve] Sieve variables and editheader

NED+mta-filters@mauve.mrochek.com Sat, 14 January 2017 19:56 UTC

Return-Path: <NED+mta-filters@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: sieve@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sieve@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E69B129D58 for <sieve@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 11:56:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bzok7SWMIJQK for <sieve@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 11:56:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [68.183.62.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65758129421 for <sieve@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 11:56:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01Q9O979KBG0006055@mauve.mrochek.com> for sieve@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 11:51:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii; Format=flowed
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01Q9M6R6SN00000066@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for sieve@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 11:50:30 -0800 (PST)
From: NED+mta-filters@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01Q9O96X15FY000066@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 11:41:04 -0800 (PST)
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sat, 14 Jan 2017 12:48:05 -0500" <e3a015e3-b420-4464-53cc-47fadde143e2@andrew.cmu.edu>
References: <d6b75ac6-7273-e4fb-d406-3bc92f33aaee@andrew.cmu.edu> <0F10022A-6EE1-4107-85B3-61E626899216@isode.com> <e3a015e3-b420-4464-53cc-47fadde143e2@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sieve/H1awg5yO0H0uQK09jc4ybZZRUbo>
Cc: Sieve mailing list <sieve@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sieve] Sieve variables and editheader
X-BeenThere: sieve@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIEVE Working Group <sieve.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sieve>, <mailto:sieve-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sieve/>
List-Post: <mailto:sieve@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sieve-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve>, <mailto:sieve-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:56:21 -0000

> No reason against it, just asking.

> Should a redirect action use the original headers or the edited? 

RFC 5293 section 7 second paragraph says it uses the modified header. The
example at the end of section 4 won't work if the original header is
used.

> I'm assuming that reject and vacation use the original headers.

Reject generates a DSN or MDN; the first paragraph of section 7 clearly
states that the original header is used in such cases.

A lot of vacation implementations don't include the original message
in the response; in such cases the question is moot.

For those implementations that do include the original message, the same
paragraph also covers "similar disposition messages"; I'd say this sort of
vacation response falls into that category.

				Ned