Re: sieve vacation draft, really
Tim Showalter <tjs@mirapoint.com> Thu, 29 July 1999 21:52 UTC
Received: by mail.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA24115 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.mirapoint.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mail.mirapoint.com [209.157.59.162]) by mail.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24111 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tim-bsd.mirapoint.com (tim-bsd.mirapoint.com [192.168.0.117]) by mail.mirapoint.com with SMTP id ANK00031 Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Spook: supercomputer Janet Reno Roswell Ft. Bragg smuggle Noriega bomb
To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org
Subject: Re: sieve vacation draft, really
References: <001101bec8e5$d545f3f0$1a05020a@software.com> <37858774.8CEAE32@mirapoint.com> <7demhs2r89.fsf@tim-bsd.mirapoint.com>
From: Tim Showalter <tjs@mirapoint.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:55:10 -0700
In-Reply-To: Tim Showalter's message of "28 Jul 1999 18:13:10 -0700"
Message-ID: <7d7lnj15q9.fsf@tim-bsd.mirapoint.com>
Lines: 14
User-Agent: Gnus/5.070093 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.93) XEmacs/21.1 (Arches)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Tim Showalter <tjs@mirapoint.com> writes: > I have come to the conclusion that this is a good idea, and came up > with the beginnings of a spec. > > Is this worth taking further? Alexey Melnikov pointed out that I'm reinventing the wheel, and that Jacob Palme has already written a header that does just this. It looks like "Auto-submitted: auto-replied" is what I want. Thanks. http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mailext-new-fields-15.txt Received: by mail.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA24115 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:52:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.mirapoint.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mail.mirapoint.com [209.157.59.162]) by mail.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24111 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:52:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tim-bsd.mirapoint.com (tim-bsd.mirapoint.com [192.168.0.117]) by mail.mirapoint.com with SMTP id ANK00031 Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:54:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Spook: supercomputer Janet Reno Roswell Ft. Bragg smuggle Noriega bomb To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: sieve vacation draft, really References: <001101bec8e5$d545f3f0$1a05020a@software.com> <37858774.8CEAE32@mirapoint.com> <7demhs2r89.fsf@tim-bsd.mirapoint.com> From: Tim Showalter <tjs@mirapoint.com> Date: 29 Jul 1999 14:55:10 -0700 In-Reply-To: Tim Showalter's message of "28 Jul 1999 18:13:10 -0700" Message-ID: <7d7lnj15q9.fsf@tim-bsd.mirapoint.com> Lines: 14 User-Agent: Gnus/5.070093 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.93) XEmacs/21.1 (Arches) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Tim Showalter <tjs@mirapoint.com> writes: > I have come to the conclusion that this is a good idea, and came up > with the beginnings of a spec. > > Is this worth taking further? Alexey Melnikov pointed out that I'm reinventing the wheel, and that Jacob Palme has already written a header that does just this. It looks like "Auto-submitted: auto-replied" is what I want. Thanks. http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mailext-new-fields-15.txt Received: by mail.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00178 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:10:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.mirapoint.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mail.mirapoint.com [209.157.59.162]) by mail.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA00166 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tim-bsd.mirapoint.com (tim-bsd.mirapoint.com [192.168.0.117]) by mail.mirapoint.com with SMTP id ANG00028 Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:12:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Spook: $400 million in gold bullion Croatian assassination Watergate Noriega counter-intelligence diskless workstation To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: sieve vacation draft, really References: <001101bec8e5$d545f3f0$1a05020a@software.com> <37858774.8CEAE32@mirapoint.com> From: Tim Showalter <tjs@mirapoint.com> Date: 28 Jul 1999 18:13:10 -0700 In-Reply-To: Tim Showalter's message of "Thu, 08 Jul 1999 22:24:04 -0700" Message-ID: <7demhs2r89.fsf@tim-bsd.mirapoint.com> Lines: 52 User-Agent: Gnus/5.070093 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.93) XEmacs/21.1 (Arches) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Tim Showalter <tjs@mirapoint.com> writes: > We should add yet another header that can be properly standardized that > marks a message as automatically generated without consent of a human on > the other end. I think this solves that problem, and should probably be > written up as yet another spec so that we don't have non-Sieve solutions > dependant on Sieve's vacation extension. > > Would this solve that problem? I have come to the conclusion that this is a good idea, and came up with the beginnings of a spec. Is this worth taking further? ---- The Automated Header The "Automated" header indicates that the message came from an automated agent. While the From/Return-Path addresses may specify mailboxes read by real people, the message did not strictly come from them. Vacation autoresponders and mailing list exploders that support this header do not respond to messages containing this header. Automated processes are encouraged to not generate this header, as circumstances require. User agents MUST NOT genertate this header (unless acting without the knowledge of the user). Specifically, this header MUST NOT be used to declare that users do not want automatic responses. A mechanism for declaring that automatic responses are not necessary is outside the scope of this memo. Example: Automated: type=vacation "type" attribute The type attribute declares the type of the autoresponse. Two types are defined by this specification: vacation and mailing-list. Vacation delcares that the message is a vacation-style autoresponse (text specified by the sending user stating when the recipient can expect to see a response). Mailing-list specifies that the message was processed by a mailing list exploder. The original sender (whoever is on the From line) has no knowledge that he has sent a particular mailing list subscriber a message. The Automated header indicates that the message was transmitted with the assistance of such a mailing list agent, and it is unlikely that telling the original sender that the mailing list subscriber is unavailible is helpful. Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id OAA02592 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:32:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.andrew.cmu.edu (SMTP1.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.10.81]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA02588 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:32:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from platypus.cc.cmu.edu (PLATYPUS.CC.CMU.EDU [128.2.121.154]) by smtp1.andrew.cmu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA12959; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 17:34:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: 23 Jul 1999 17:34:34 -0400 Message-ID: <emacs-smtp-1890-14232-57322-938767@platypus.cc.cmu.edu> From: Lawrence Greenfield <leg+@andrew.cmu.edu> X-Mailer: BatIMail version 3.2 To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org In-reply-to: <000b01bed54d$f9f3dfe0$90fe3b9d@dns.microsoft.com> Subject: Re: redirect action References: <000b01bed54d$f9f3dfe0$90fe3b9d@dns.microsoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> We'd like to see similiar wording as to what was done for the "fileinto" action. I.e. Implementations SHOULD support redirect, but in some environments this may be difficult. If this is going to be done, I would like this decision to be made soon. We're planning on rolling out a Sieve mail filter rather soon, and I would prefer that scripts not break because they lack a require "redirect" command. (Conversely, adding require "redirect" into scripts now would make them not work.) On retrospect, it seems somewhat unfortunate that we didn't require a minimal functionality from implementations. Larry Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id NAA02153 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:56:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from doggate.exchange.microsoft.com (doggate.exchange.microsoft.com [131.107.88.55]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA02149 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:56:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from PTROUTE.dfpt.extest.microsoft.com (PTROUTE [172.30.236.83]) by doggate.exchange.microsoft.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2232.9) id PB77XXAA; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:56:08 -0700 Received: from PTDOG.dfpt.extest.microsoft.com ([172.30.236.159]) by PTROUTE.dfpt.extest.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2072.0072.0); Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:58:58 -0700 Received: from mikega9 ([157.59.254.144]) by PTDOG.dfpt.extest.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2072.0072.0); Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:58:57 -0700 Message-ID: <000b01bed54d$f9f3dfe0$90fe3b9d@dns.microsoft.com> From: "Mike Gahrns" <mikega@microsoft.com> To: <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: redirect action Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:57:29 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 1999 20:58:57.0836 (UTC) FILETIME=[2E90CEC0:01BED54E] Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> We have interest in this draft, but may have some trouble implementing the "redirect" action however. We'd like to see similiar wording as to what was done for the "fileinto" action. I.e. Implementations SHOULD support redirect, but in some environments this may be difficult. Would it be possible to make "redirect" symmetrical with "fileinto" in this regard. thx Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id WAA02393 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.mirapoint.com (mirapoint@mail.mirapoint.com [209.157.59.162]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA02387 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:27:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mirapoint.com (tim-bsd.mirapoint.com [192.168.0.117]) by mail.mirapoint.com with ESMTP id AIS00720 Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:23:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <37858774.8CEAE32@mirapoint.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 22:24:04 -0700 From: Tim Showalter <tjs@mirapoint.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2.8-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: aks@Software.com CC: Tim Showalter <tjs+@andrew.cmu.edu>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: sieve vacation draft, really References: <001101bec8e5$d545f3f0$1a05020a@software.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> Alan Stebbens wrote: > It is generally a Bad Idea to respond automatically to any kind of bulk or > list mail. I cannot think of a single valid reason to have an automatic > response sent to a list. Even if it is possible to determine who was the > original sender of a message that was relayed through a list, it is a bad > idea to automatically reply. I agree, and there are safeguards in the spec, as is. > For example, if you send a mail through the "IETF-MTA-FILTERS" list and got > back 100 automatic vacation responses, you would be little bit miffed, I'll > bet. The vacation spec specifies the following: * replies go to the envelope sender, NOT the from or sender address, so I wouldn't get the responses, the list maintainer would. * my vacation agent may only reply to a given message if my address is in the to or cc lines. So those replies won't be generated in the first place. So this vacation spec is not contributing to that problem. > So, given that it is a Bad Idea, it seems reasonable (to me :^) that the > VACATION extension specifically state that it will not ever respond to mail > with certain attributes, including "Precedence: bulk" or "Precedence: list", > as well as certain Sender or From addresses (see next issue). Precedence is not a standard header, and is referenced only in RFCs that say not to use it. > | > * does it generate replies to "mailer-daemon", "Postmaster", "root", and > | > other system accounts? > | > | Implementation dependant (as of the next revision). > > It is a bad idea to leave what should be consistent behaviour as > "implementation dependant". I don't want to specify the list because it's a moving target. If we supply the list, it will be incomplete and probably a point where people will attack the spec. Worse, I don't want to specify that certain IDs always belong to the mail system; that may not be true. Preventing replies to system accounts is not a life-or-death feature. Some of these messages (like the ones from MAILER-DAEMON) will come with an envelope sender of <>, so they don't count; we won't be replying to bounces. What you may not have realized is that it is important that this be at least partially implementation-dependant in case someone invents yet another one of these names. We already have PoStMaStER, root, MAILER-DAEMON, possibly Administrator, System, *-request, owner-*, etc., and it is not at all clear that all of these addresses are always system accounts. If the mail comes from a human behind the guise of a system account, it may be useful to know that someone is on vacation, or that they won't reply because the user name isn't familiar (ever send Nathaniel Borenstein mail?). That is, imagine that you're a postmaster, replying to mail with the >From line postmaster@whatever.com, and having my vacation decide not to reply with the following message because you're clearly a computer: Hi. I don't read mail from people I don't know. I will never get your message unless you resend it t tjs+urgent@mirapoint.com. What I'm trying to point out is that none of these addresses are standard. Requiring people to not reply to them is demanding that people base standards on ad-hoc names that there may be very good reasons to violate. Given the fact that vacation replies to the envelope, not the from line, I don't consider it much of an issue. > Again, in this case certain source addresses > should *never* receive automatic responses. The VACATION spec should > enumerate the well-known system and postmaster account names in addition to > specifying a VARIABLE that can be set on a per-site basis. [Hint: Sieve > should support variables, of some kind, and not leave the details to a > "implementation dependent" spec.] What's the benefit to doing this in a variable? That is a MAJOR amount of complexity to introduce, and there is running code that doesn't need it. (We're talking about another ten pages of spec and breaking several implementations for what immediately amounts to a minor feature.) > The only possible reason to not build-in a specific list of well-known > system addresses is because it is remotely possible that some site might > wish to include even these addresses in the vacation responses. This is an > extremely unusual case, and can be provided for by using an explicit Sieve > rule, without using VACATION. No, an explicit rule doesn't help. Vacation is the only command that responds to messages, and it won't respond to them. > Thus, IMHO, VACATION MUST NOT generate responses to a well-known set of > addresses, and, in addition, SHOULD support a site-specific or user-specific > list of addresses for which autoresponses will be avoided. I am not convinced that this is the Right Thing, but we don't need variables to do that. We can get by with the existing spec plus an if, i.e., if not address :is :localpart "from" ["postmaster","mailer-daemon"] { vacation ... ; } My point is that variables are overkill. > | > * does it generate replies to mail with any subject containing the text: > | > "[vacation]" or "[auto-response]"? If so, why? If not, are > | these the only > | > two strings that are recognized as being generated by an email > | > auto-responder. > | > | Yes, why not? > > This is another Bad Idea. If my auto-responder replies to a message from > you about my being on vacation, and your auto-responder replies to that > message, you and I both will have contributed to at least one and possibly > two unecessary messages. One of those messages is never unnecessary. If I send you mail, and get a vacation, that message is mandatory; it's the whole point of this spec. > Your question is cogent. There are other strings that should be avoided, > but this SHOULD be site- and user-configurable. However, even without any > site- or user-specification of specialized subject tokens, there should be a > set of DEFAULT tokens defined by the VACATION spec. So, I suggest these > VARIABLES: > [deleted] > We're going to have to put regexp into the Sieve spec eventually, in order > to make it easier to write rules, so we might as well do so with the > AVOID_SUBJECT variables. You are handing me a loaded can of worms. We don't "need" regular expressions. I don't want to have to write them up or reference a POSIX spec that I don't have and can't afford. I object to overloading the Subject header. It has a perfectly good meaning that cannot be understood by (modern) computers and hacking around it with globs or regexps is not a clean solution. We should add yet another header that can be properly standardized that marks a message as automatically generated without consent of a human on the other end. I think this solves that problem, and should probably be written up as yet another spec so that we don't have non-Sieve solutions dependant on Sieve's vacation extension. Would this solve that problem? Tim Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id TAA12002 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 19:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nome.software.com (nome.software.com [207.175.94.3]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA11978 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 19:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from frankfurt ([10.2.5.26]) by nome.software.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0L0S0V35) with SMTP id com; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 19:01:54 -0700 Reply-To: <aks@Software.com> From: Alan.Stebbens@Software.com (Alan Stebbens) To: "Tim Showalter" <tjs+@andrew.cmu.edu> Cc: <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: RE: sieve vacation draft, really Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 19:01:46 -0700 Message-ID: <001101bec8e5$d545f3f0$1a05020a@software.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800 In-Reply-To: <emacs-14783-14126-1816-57308@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> | > * does it generate replies to bulk mail? If not, how does it | decide not to? | | Yes; what's the difference? Users can selectively do vacation | responses, of course, but... Tim, Thanks for the reply. It is generally a Bad Idea to respond automatically to any kind of bulk or list mail. I cannot think of a single valid reason to have an automatic response sent to a list. Even if it is possible to determine who was the original sender of a message that was relayed through a list, it is a bad idea to automatically reply. For example, if you send a mail through the "IETF-MTA-FILTERS" list and got back 100 automatic vacation responses, you would be little bit miffed, I'll bet. So, given that it is a Bad Idea, it seems reasonable (to me :^) that the VACATION extension specifically state that it will not ever respond to mail with certain attributes, including "Precedence: bulk" or "Precedence: list", as well as certain Sender or From addresses (see next issue). | > * does it generate replies to "mailer-daemon", "Postmaster", "root", and | > other system accounts? | | Implementation dependant (as of the next revision). It is a bad idea to leave what should be consistent behaviour as "implementation dependant". Again, in this case certain source addresses should *never* receive automatic responses. The VACATION spec should enumerate the well-known system and postmaster account names in addition to specifying a VARIABLE that can be set on a per-site basis. [Hint: Sieve should support variables, of some kind, and not leave the details to a "implementation dependent" spec.] The only possible reason to not build-in a specific list of well-known system addresses is because it is remotely possible that some site might wish to include even these addresses in the vacation responses. This is an extremely unusual case, and can be provided for by using an explicit Sieve rule, without using VACATION. It my understanding that the VACATION action is designed for common use by end-users. For this reason, it should be constrained against Bad behaviour. Thus, IMHO, VACATION MUST NOT generate responses to a well-known set of addresses, and, in addition, SHOULD support a site-specific or user-specific list of addresses for which autoresponses will be avoided. The method of specifying the site- or user-specific SHOULD occur through the definition of these variables: SITE_IGNORE_ADDRS=<address-list> IGNORE_ADDRS=<address-list> <address-list> ::= <address> [<separator> <address-list>]* <separator> ::= "," | ";" | " " | > * does it generate replies to mail with any subject containing the text: | > "[vacation]" or "[auto-response]"? If so, why? If not, are | these the only | > two strings that are recognized as being generated by an email | > auto-responder. | | Yes, why not? This is another Bad Idea. If my auto-responder replies to a message from you about my being on vacation, and your auto-responder replies to that message, you and I both will have contributed to at least one and possibly two unecessary messages. Eventually, you and I will have to read and delete these worthless messages at a cost of our personal time and attention. We want the VACATION extension to relieve work, not create more of it. Your question is cogent. There are other strings that should be avoided, but this SHOULD be site- and user-configurable. However, even without any site- or user-specification of specialized subject tokens, there should be a set of DEFAULT tokens defined by the VACATION spec. So, I suggest these VARIABLES: SITE_AVOID_SUBJECT_TOKENS=<token list> SITE_AVOID_SUBJECT_REGEXP=<token list> AVOID_SUBJECT_TOKENS=<token list> AVOID_SUBJECT_REGEXP=<regexp> <token list> ::= <keyword phrase> [<token separator> <token list>]* <token separator> ::= ";" | "," The TOKENS variables are used to do case-insensitive matching of each token phrase in the list against the subject. The REGEXP variables are used as a regular expression match against the Subject. The SITE variables are applied as a default, in case the user has not specified their own list. The VACATION spec should define a standard default that implementations SHOULD follow, in the absence of site definitions. We're going to have to put regexp into the Sieve spec eventually, in order to make it easier to write rules, so we might as well do so with the AVOID_SUBJECT variables. Thanks for the response. Sorry for the extremely late reply. It has been pretty hectic lately. -- Alan K. Stebbens <aks@software.com> Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id RAA05763 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 17:34:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.qualcomm.com (strange.qualcomm.com [129.46.2.27]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA05758 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 17:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 129.46.158.108 (randy-mac.qualcomm.com [129.46.158.108]) by strange.qualcomm.com (8.8.5/1.4/8.7.2/1.14) with ESMTP id RAA07841; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 17:33:11 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <v0421010bb3a84ba16944@129.46.158.108> In-Reply-To: <emacs-smtp-411-14205-26301-245366@platypus.cc.cmu.edu> References: <37698099.D0AC59EE@netscape.com> <v0420550fb3a3093448b6@129.46.158.108> <emacs-smtp-411-14205-26301-245366@platypus.cc.cmu.edu> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Eudora Pro v4.2 for Macintosh Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 17:25:46 -0700 To: Lawrence Greenfield <leg+@andrew.cmu.edu>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org From: Randall Gellens <randy@Qualcomm.Com> Subject: Re: Storing filters in LDAP Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Random-Sig-Tag: v1.0b12 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> At 9:26 PM -0400 7/2/99, Lawrence Greenfield wrote: >I agree with Randy that ACAP is the best place to store sieve >scripts. We could define a small subset that an ACAP server must >support to handle Sieve scripts which should be straightforward to >implement and place no large resource requirements on servers. > >Locating the ACAP server would be interesting. I would suggest >connecting to the ACAP port on the same host as the IMAP server, but >paying attention to referral. (This complicates the client >implementation somewhat, but is probably worth it.) I suggest we use a different port, since the server may support a subset of ACAP. We probably need a new email accounts dataset attribute, email.sieve.script.url, and should probably rename the email.sieve.script to email.sieve.script.text. Then, if there is a general ACAP server available, the client can connect to it and examine the email.sieve.script.url attribute of the email accounts dataset. If both are null and the client wants to store a Sieve script, the capabilities dataset should be queried to determine if this server supports Sieve. If not, I suppose the client should try the ACAP Sieve profile port on the mail server. It should then store into either email.sieve.script.text or into email.sieve.script.url on the ACAP server and into email.sieve.script.text on the mail server. If there is no general ACAP server available, then the ACAP Sieve profile port of the mail server should be tried. >I could probably produce a draft of such functionality (and perhaps a >prototype server) if people desire. I was going to write a draft for the ACAP Sieve profile, I'd be happy to either let you do it or to coauthor it with you. I think a prototype server would be useful. We do have some code we've been playing with which we were considering for inclusion in qpopper 3.1, if it gets finished in time. The more the merrier. Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id SAA04408 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 18:22:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.andrew.cmu.edu (SMTP2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.10.82]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA04400 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 18:22:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from platypus.cc.cmu.edu (PLATYPUS.CC.CMU.EDU [128.2.121.154]) by smtp2.andrew.cmu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA06844; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 21:26:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: 2 Jul 1999 21:26:21 -0400 Message-ID: <emacs-smtp-411-14205-26301-245366@platypus.cc.cmu.edu> From: Lawrence Greenfield <leg+@andrew.cmu.edu> X-Mailer: BatIMail version 3.2 To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org In-reply-to: <v0420550fb3a3093448b6@129.46.158.108> Subject: Re: Storing filters in LDAP References: <37698099.D0AC59EE@netscape.com> <v0420550fb3a3093448b6@129.46.158.108> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> I agree with Randy that ACAP is the best place to store sieve scripts. We could define a small subset that an ACAP server must support to handle Sieve scripts which should be straightforward to implement and place no large resource requirements on servers. Locating the ACAP server would be interesting. I would suggest connecting to the ACAP port on the same host as the IMAP server, but paying attention to referral. (This complicates the client implementation somewhat, but is probably worth it.) I could probably produce a draft of such functionality (and perhaps a prototype server) if people desire. Larry Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id RAA29991 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from apprentice.qualcomm.com (apprentice.qualcomm.com [129.46.2.86]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA29987 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:35:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 129.46.158.108 (randy-mac.qualcomm.com [129.46.158.108]) by apprentice.qualcomm.com (8.8.5/1.4/8.7.2/1.14) with ESMTP id RAA19836; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <v0420550fb3a3093448b6@129.46.158.108> In-Reply-To: <37698099.D0AC59EE@netscape.com> References: <37698099.D0AC59EE@netscape.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Eudora Pro v4.2 for Macintosh Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:33:16 -0700 To: "Bruce Steinback" <bruces@Netscape.COM>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org From: Randall Gellens <randy@Qualcomm.Com> Subject: Re: Storing filters in LDAP Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Random-Sig-Tag: v1.0b12 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe> I think we'll see UIs that expose a subset of Sieve functionality to users, very much like today's mail client filter UIs. The UI itself will generate and interpret Sieve syntax (and will probably punt on interpreting complex Sieve scripts and present an edit box). How the UI accesses the Sieve script is n interesting question. My Email Accounts draft (draft-ietf-acap-email-02.txt) suggests using an ACAP dataset for email account information. We have prototype code that includes an NT GUI for Sieve creation and editing, a mini-ACAP server for accessing the Sieve script, and a Sieve execution engine. The actual Sieve script is stored in a file, but this is invisible except to the mini-ACAP server and the Sieve execution engine. I can also see people implementing various other access methods including email and HTTP. I think ACAP is attractive because it allows the client to get extension information and syntax errors and the syntax is very easy on both the client and the server, and there is no need for a full ACAP server -- the mini-server (just for Sieve) works well.
- sieve vacation draft, really Tim Showalter
- Re: sieve vacation draft, really J.D. Falk
- Re: sieve vacation draft, really Tim Showalter
- Re: sieve vacation draft, really Alexey Melnikov
- Re: sieve vacation draft, really Tim Showalter
- Re: sieve vacation draft, really Michael Salmon
- Re: sieve vacation draft, really Tim Showalter
- Re: sieve vacation draft, really Tony Hansen
- Re: sieve vacation draft, really J.D. Falk
- Re: sieve vacation draft, really Ned Freed
- Re: sieve vacation draft, really Tim Showalter
- Re: sieve vacation draft, really Tim Showalter
- Re: sieve vacation draft, really Michael Salmon
- Re: sieve vacation draft, really Alexey Melnikov
- Re: sieve vacation draft, really Tony Hansen
- Re: sieve vacation draft, really Michael Salmon
- Re: sieve vacation draft, really Tim Showalter
- Re: sieve vacation draft, really Michael Salmon
- RE: sieve vacation draft, really Alan K. Stebbens
- Re: sieve vacation draft, really Tim Showalter
- RE: sieve vacation draft, really Alan Stebbens
- Re: sieve vacation draft, really Tim Showalter
- Re: sieve vacation draft, really Tim Showalter
- Re: sieve vacation draft, really Tim Showalter