Re: A question/comment on the envelope test regarding envelope parts
Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl> Wed, 30 July 2008 08:16 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 BCCC33A67B0 for <ietfarch-sieve-archive-Aet6aiqu@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:16:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.046
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553]
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 Io5XoE9mslKa for <ietfarch-sieve-archive-Aet6aiqu@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:16:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (Balder-227.Proper.COM [192.245.12.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE83B3A6843 for <sieve-archive-Aet6aiqu@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
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 m6U81gao059018 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:01:42 -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 m6U81gTP059017; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:01:42 -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 m6U81esL058996 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:01:42 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from stephan@rename-it.nl)
Received: from ewi1247.ewi.utwente.nl ([130.89.12.150] helo=[127.0.0.1]) 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 1KO5Pj-0005ZS-5V; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:43:59 +0200
Message-ID: <48901FD8.10204@rename-it.nl>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:01:28 +0200
From: Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
CC: SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>
Subject: Re: A question/comment on the envelope test regarding envelope parts
References: <488CE6FF.3020408@rename-it.nl> <01MXQLWYRVPC00007A@mauve.mrochek.com>
In-Reply-To: <01MXQLWYRVPC00007A@mauve.mrochek.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=-1.958, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -0.40, AWL 1.04, BAYES_00 -2.60)
X-RenameIT-MailScanner-From: stephan@rename-it.nl
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: > AFAIK such normalization isn't called for anywhere in RFC 5228. > Indeed, the RFC > goes out of its way to allow :all to be used to perform tests on > syntactically > invalid envelope field values. So if your implementation attempts some > sort of > normalization, fails, and ends up with something other than the original > string, I'd have to call that broken. Agreed, I see that now, thanks. Btw, I was also referring to the wrong RFC regarding the addresses :) > >> The new notary draft does not mention the interaction with address parts >> either. In my opinion it would be best to prohibit the use of an >> ADDRESS-PART parameter for an envelope test that involves envelope parts >> that represent no addresses and let the matching act on unprocessed >> string values. > > Since :localpart or :domain make no sense on anything other than an > address > field, this seems like a reasonable restriction to me. Ok, I am glad that you agree. Regards, Stephan. 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 m6U81gao059018 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:01:42 -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 m6U81gTP059017; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:01:42 -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 m6U81esL058996 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:01:42 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from stephan@rename-it.nl) Received: from ewi1247.ewi.utwente.nl ([130.89.12.150] helo=[127.0.0.1]) 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 1KO5Pj-0005ZS-5V; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:43:59 +0200 Message-ID: <48901FD8.10204@rename-it.nl> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:01:28 +0200 From: Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> CC: SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: A question/comment on the envelope test regarding envelope parts References: <488CE6FF.3020408@rename-it.nl> <01MXQLWYRVPC00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> In-Reply-To: <01MXQLWYRVPC00007A@mauve.mrochek.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=-1.958, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -0.40, AWL 1.04, 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> Ned Freed wrote: > AFAIK such normalization isn't called for anywhere in RFC 5228. > Indeed, the RFC > goes out of its way to allow :all to be used to perform tests on > syntactically > invalid envelope field values. So if your implementation attempts some > sort of > normalization, fails, and ends up with something other than the original > string, I'd have to call that broken. Agreed, I see that now, thanks. Btw, I was also referring to the wrong RFC regarding the addresses :) > >> The new notary draft does not mention the interaction with address parts >> either. In my opinion it would be best to prohibit the use of an >> ADDRESS-PART parameter for an envelope test that involves envelope parts >> that represent no addresses and let the matching act on unprocessed >> string values. > > Since :localpart or :domain make no sense on anything other than an > address > field, this seems like a reasonable restriction to me. Ok, I am glad that you agree. Regards, Stephan. 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 m6U2ERfb035146 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:14:27 -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 m6U2ER9V035145; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:14:27 -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 mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6U2EPMq035137 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:14:26 -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 <01MXQLX06RLC008I3N@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:14:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01MXPNFLB3YO00007A@mauve.mrochek.com>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:14:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1217384063; h=Date: From:Subject:MIME-version:Content-type; b=bX4KmEd3UTLiPEo0kRa9VzWf1 CEYwpOmG74CgBOk5NocyrI4t2dauMBDnh+Uw6IS1xE2gl7z8GNllHSjIhJkpw== Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:51:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Subject: Re: A question/comment on the envelope test regarding envelope parts In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:22:07 +0200" <488CE6FF.3020408@rename-it.nl> To: Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl> Cc: SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>, ned.freed@mrochek.com Message-id: <01MXQLWYRVPC00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <488CE6FF.3020408@rename-it.nl> 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, > I am currently working towards the first release of a new Sieve > implementation by doing an extensive standards compliance review of all > that I've implemented thus far. Among others, I have one question about > the envelope test that also has some relevance to the new notary > extension that you are about to discuss in Dublin. > According to section 5.4 of the main Sieve specification (rfc5228), the > envelope test can be extended with support for new envelope parts. The > ones specified in that main document are both addresses and thus the > ADDRESS-PART argument makes perfect sense. However, due to its > extendability, I started wondering what would happen if one were to > extend the envelope test with envelope parts that do not represent an > address in the sense of rfc(2)822. Today I noticed that that is exactly > what the notary extension does. > Currently, my implementation would mangle the non-address envelope part > through the address part processing, which for instance for the :all > address part tries to normalize the address to the string > "local_part@domain" before string comparison. AFAIK such normalization isn't called for anywhere in RFC 5228. Indeed, the RFC goes out of its way to allow :all to be used to perform tests on syntactically invalid envelope field values. So if your implementation attempts some sort of normalization, fails, and ends up with something other than the original string, I'd have to call that broken. The only processing you're supposed to do is the removal of source routes from fields that allow them. (It wouldn't hurt to clarify that this shouldn't change a syntactically invalid stuff in the next revision.) > Given the fact that the > rfc 5228 states that 'If an optional address-part is omitted, the > default is ":all".' (section 2.7.4), there is (in my view) currently no > standardized way around this problem. I disagree. To the extent this is an issue, it is a consequence of an implementation choice you made. That choice already isn't correct if it prevents :all from being used with syntactically invalid addresses and it won't be correct for the new fields the notary draft adds. > The new notary draft does not mention the interaction with address parts > either. In my opinion it would be best to prohibit the use of an > ADDRESS-PART parameter for an envelope test that involves envelope parts > that represent no addresses and let the matching act on unprocessed > string values. Since :localpart or :domain make no sense on anything other than an address field, this seems like a reasonable restriction to me. 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 m6SCOURK053150 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 05:24:30 -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 m6SCOUPV053149; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 05:24:30 -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 chiark.greenend.org.uk (chiark.greenend.org.uk [212.13.197.229]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6SCONJJ053129 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 05:24:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from fanf@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Received: by chiark.greenend.org.uk (Debian Exim 3.36 #1) with local (return-path fanf@chiark.greenend.org.uk) id 1KNRm1-0004ff-00 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:24:21 +0100 To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Subject: Re: Managesieve Reauthentification. Replication In-Reply-To: <cf79guKxnuRCfZjudhLR9g.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> References: <488CBBEA.7090105@aegee.org> <488CBBEA.7090105@aegee.org> Message-Id: <E1KNRm1-0004ff-00@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:24:21 +0100 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 <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> wrote: >Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org wrote: >> Are there any reasons to include "Reauthentication is not supported by=20 >> ManageSieve protocol's profile of SASL. I.e. after a successfully=20 >> completed AUTHENTICATE command, no more AUTHENTICATE commands may be=20 >> issued in the same session." in draft-martin-managesieve-10/2.1=20 >> AUTHENTICATE Command ? > >That makes it possible to drop privileges on authentication. We have a distributed mail store, where each back-end Cyrus server hosts a subset of the users, and front-end proxy servers direct connections depending on the user that logs in. The proxy only needs to implement enough POP/IMAP/managesieve to allow the user to log in, then it knows the username and can find out which back-end server to connect to. After a successful login the proxy just shovels bytes back and forth. Reauthentication would require a much more complicated proxy. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ FORTIES CROMARTY FORTH TYNE: EASTERLY 3 OR 4, INCREASING 5 OR 6 IN FORTIES AND CROMARTY. SLIGHT OR MODERATE. THUNDERY SHOWERS, FOG BANKS. MODERATE, OCCASIONALLY VERY POOR. 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 m6SAqqA6045701 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 03:52:52 -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 m6SAqqqe045700; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 03:52:52 -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 kalyani.oryx.com (kalyani.oryx.com [195.30.37.30]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6SAqpgs045692 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 03:52:52 -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 4D2384AC64 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:52:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 195.30.37.40 (HELO lochnagar.oryx.com) by kalyani.oryx.com with esmtp id 1217242346-55620-164 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:52:26 +0200 Message-Id: <ouuZjClhnN/DcWCpYWYdSA.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:50:43 +0200 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Managesieve Reauthentification. Replication References: <488CBBEA.7090105@aegee.org> <8QKESNZXQXD6Dl8rSlk/vA.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> <488D9F42.2010102@aegee.org> In-Reply-To: <488D9F42.2010102@aegee.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; 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> =E4=C9=CC=D1=CE =F0=C1=CC=C1=D5=DA=CF=D7 writes: > Hello Arnt, > > About reauthentification: > > That makes it possible to drop privileges on authentication. > Could you explain this with a little bit more words? Dropping privileges means that the process voluntarily gives up the=20 rights to do something. In the case of managesieve, the server process=20 voluntarily gives up the ability to access or modify files belonging to=20 any user other than a specified one, and it cannot recover that ability=20 later. This is often used to limit the effects of bugs, particularly security = bugs. 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 m6SASbKh043036 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 03:28:37 -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 m6SASbLH043035; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 03:28:37 -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 smtp.aegee.uni-karlsruhe.de (smtp.aegee.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.62.220]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6SASTnT043022 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 03:28:36 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org) Received: from smtp.aegee.org (aegeeserv.aegee.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.131.80]) by smtp2.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 4.63 #1) id 1KNPxn-0000R0-O2; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:28:23 +0200 X-Mail-Sent-By-AEGEE.org-Account: didopalauzov Received: from [192.168.1.12] (d90-128-13-17.cust.tele2.de [90.128.13.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.aegee.org (8.14.3/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m6SASLI9031574 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:28:23 GMT Message-ID: <488D9F42.2010102@aegee.org> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:28:18 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= <Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF Sieve WG <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: Managesieve Reauthentification. Replication References: <488CBBEA.7090105@aegee.org> <8QKESNZXQXD6Dl8rSlk/vA.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> In-Reply-To: <8QKESNZXQXD6Dl8rSlk/vA.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93.3/7862/Mon Jul 28 09:09:23 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 Arnt, > Why are these independent? Why would you want to have lots of > different user names and passwords for owner-N2, N2, > N2-unsub... etc? > > It seems to me that what you really want is an extended setactive > command or cross-user includes. owner-N2 and N2-request are not users, but addresses. To upload scripts over managesieve it is not possible to give an address, one has first to authenticate and then username=address. The "username" does not have to belong to some user, as far as one authenticates with the "master user" who can install global and private scripts for other users. There is no password for the non-existent users N2-request, owner-N2. The latter are addresses. N2 is a mailing list and in consequence the addresses owner-N2, N2-unsub... etc do exist. The scripts for that addresses do not have to be independent, it can be the same script, however this are different addresses, uncoupled from IMAP. Under this circumstances, the sieve interpretation has either to find out that owner-N2 and N2-request are supposed to have the same script (transited to imap terms, the addresses end in the same mailbox), or to install scripts for each user independently. In the latter case the sieve interpretation can consider the owner-N2, N2-request etc as normal recipients and obtain their scripts in the usual way. If the interpretation has to find out that owner-N2 and N2-request are related, then it is first more difficult (to integrate this information when uploading the script), and second the scripts for owner-N2, N2-request etc are supposed to coincide. This is not necessary. About reauthentification: > That makes it possible to drop privileges on authentication. Could you explain this with a little bit more words? СÑÑ Ð·Ð´Ñаве, ÐилÑн Arnt Gulbrandsen schrieb: > > Another response, independent. > > ÐилÑн ÐалаÑзов writes: >> If for some reason a lot of sieve scripts are generated and need to be >> uploaded, then the uploading application has to make several >> connections to the managesieve server (using the same master authname >> that can edit all scripts and different usernames). E.g. when the >> scripts for a mailing list N2 are generated, the users owner-N2@, N2@, >> N2-unsubscribe-request@, N2-subscribe-request@, N2-request@ need to be >> uploaded in different connections to the managesieve server. > > Why are these independent? Why would you wat to have lots of different > user names and passwords for owner-N2, N2, N2-unsub... etc? > > It seems to me that what you really want is an extended setactive > command or cross-user includes. > > 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 m6S9DmJr035017 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 02:13:48 -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 m6S9DmmF035016; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 02:13:48 -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 m6S9DidS035006 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 02:13:45 -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 C612E4AC5B for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:13:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 195.30.37.40 (HELO lochnagar.oryx.com) by kalyani.oryx.com with esmtp id 1217236396-55620-124 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:13:16 +0200 Message-Id: <8QKESNZXQXD6Dl8rSlk/vA.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:33:50 +0200 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Managesieve Reauthentification. Replication References: <488CBBEA.7090105@aegee.org> In-Reply-To: <488CBBEA.7090105@aegee.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; 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> Another response, independent. =E4=C9=CC=D1=CE =F0=C1=CC=C1=D5=DA=CF=D7 writes: > If for some reason a lot of sieve scripts are generated and need to be=20 > uploaded, then the uploading application has to make several=20 > connections to the managesieve server (using the same master authname=20 > that can edit all scripts and different usernames). E.g. when the=20 > scripts for a mailing list N2 are generated, the users owner-N2@,=20 > N2@, N2-unsubscribe-request@, N2-subscribe-request@, N2-request@ need=20 > to be uploaded in different connections to the managesieve server. Why are these independent? Why would you wat to have lots of different=20 user names and passwords for owner-N2, N2, N2-unsub... etc? It seems to me that what you really want is an extended setactive=20 command or cross-user includes. 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 m6RLVgFL090939 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:31:42 -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 m6RLVgtL090938; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:31:42 -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 m6RLVegN090931 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:31:41 -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 638304AC7A for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:31:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 195.30.37.40 (HELO lochnagar.oryx.com) by kalyani.oryx.com with esmtp id 1217194265-35066-791 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:31:05 +0200 Message-Id: <cf79guKxnuRCfZjudhLR9g.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:29:21 +0200 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Managesieve Reauthentification. Replication References: <488CBBEA.7090105@aegee.org> In-Reply-To: <488CBBEA.7090105@aegee.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; 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> =E4=C9=CC=D1=CE =F0=C1=CC=C1=D5=DA=CF=D7 writes: > Are there any reasons to include "Reauthentication is not supported by=20 > ManageSieve protocol's profile of SASL. I.e. after a successfully=20 > completed AUTHENTICATE command, no more AUTHENTICATE commands may be=20 > issued in the same session." in draft-martin-managesieve-10/2.1=20 > AUTHENTICATE Command ? That makes it possible to drop privileges on authentication. 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 m6RLLPbd090534 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:21:25 -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 m6RLLPI3090533; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:21:25 -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 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 m6RLLGEi090520 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:21:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from stephan@rename-it.nl) Received: from klara.student.utwente.nl ([130.89.162.218] helo=[10.168.3.2]) 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 1KNCTe-0003f4-0k; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 22:04:22 +0200 Message-ID: <488CE6FF.3020408@rename-it.nl> Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:22:07 +0200 From: Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> CC: ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: A question/comment on the envelope test regarding envelope parts 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=-1.925, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -0.40, AWL 1.07, 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, I am currently working towards the first release of a new Sieve implementation by doing an extensive standards compliance review of all that I've implemented thus far. Among others, I have one question about the envelope test that also has some relevance to the new notary extension that you are about to discuss in Dublin. According to section 5.4 of the main Sieve specification (rfc5228), the envelope test can be extended with support for new envelope parts. The ones specified in that main document are both addresses and thus the ADDRESS-PART argument makes perfect sense. However, due to its extendability, I started wondering what would happen if one were to extend the envelope test with envelope parts that do not represent an address in the sense of rfc(2)822. Today I noticed that that is exactly what the notary extension does. Currently, my implementation would mangle the non-address envelope part through the address part processing, which for instance for the :all address part tries to normalize the address to the string "local_part@domain" before string comparison. Given the fact that the rfc 5228 states that 'If an optional address-part is omitted, the default is ":all".' (section 2.7.4), there is (in my view) currently no standardized way around this problem. The new notary draft does not mention the interaction with address parts either. In my opinion it would be best to prohibit the use of an ADDRESS-PART parameter for an envelope test that involves envelope parts that represent no addresses and let the matching act on unprocessed string values. At the very least I think that this issue needs to be dealt with explicitly in a future version of rfc 5228 and possibly also in the new notary specification. In case I've missed something that voids this issue, any clarification is greatly appreciated. Best 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 m6RIIUvG080424 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:18:30 -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 m6RIIU97080423; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:18:30 -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 smtp.aegee.uni-karlsruhe.de (smtp.aegee.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.62.220]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6RIIRUo080414 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:18:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org) Received: from smtp.aegee.org (aegeeserv.aegee.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.131.80]) by smtp2.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 4.63 #1) id 1KNAp8-0000qq-Jd; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:18:26 +0200 X-Mail-Sent-By-AEGEE.org-Account: didopalauzov Received: from [192.168.1.12] (d90-128-13-17.cust.tele2.de [90.128.13.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.aegee.org (8.14.3/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m6RIIMtO005406 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 18:18:26 GMT Message-ID: <488CBBEA.7090105@aegee.org> Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:18:18 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= <Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF Sieve WG <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Managesieve Reauthentification. Replication Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93.3/7851/Sun Jul 27 16:47:33 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 there any reasons to include "Reauthentication is not supported by ManageSieve protocol's profile of SASL. I.e. after a successfully completed AUTHENTICATE command, no more AUTHENTICATE commands may be issued in the same session." in draft-martin-managesieve-10/2.1 AUTHENTICATE Command ? If for some reason a lot of sieve scripts are generated and need to be uploaded, then the uploading application has to make several connections to the managesieve server (using the same master authname that can edit all scripts and different usernames). E.g. when the scripts for a mailing list N2 are generated, the users owner-N2@, N2@, N2-unsubscribe-request@, N2-subscribe-request@, N2-request@ need to be uploaded in different connections to the managesieve server. This is less efficient than using the same managesieve connection and reauthenticating from time to time. Now imagine that one wants to regenrate the scripts for all lists on her server ... a lot of connections need to be established. (A mailing list needs sieve script that does SMTP rejects and hence saves one bounce at later time). Moreover, if a domain has several MX DNS records, all scripts among the mail servers shall be consistent to some extend. It would be useful if the managesieve servers can use managesieve as protocol for replication among each other. This could be achieved if the LISTSCRIPT command (or a new command) can provide a timestamp when the script was uploaded. And one more command shall allow the master user (the one that can authenticate with different usernames) to list all users who have uploaded scripts and the timestamp when the user last changed his script. Going a step furhter, during the replication one server shall be able to request the list of the users who changed their scripts only after a given timestamp. СÑÑ Ð·Ð´Ñаве, 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 m6RC3ZxK055755 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 27 Jul 2008 05:03:35 -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 m6RC3ZNT055754; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 05:03:35 -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.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [64.170.98.32]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6RC3YFN055747 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 05:03:34 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wwwrun@core3.amsl.com) Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id E26073A68B7; Sun, 27 Jul 2008 05:02:56 -0700 (PDT) X-idtracker: yes To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject (Sieve Email Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions) to Proposed Standard Reply-to: ietf@ietf.org CC: <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Message-Id: <20080727120256.E26073A68B7@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 05:02:56 -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> 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&dTag=13141&rfc_flag=0 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 m6QL2f3i008253 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:02:41 -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 m6QL2fSV008252; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:02:41 -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 rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6QL2dwr008245 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:02:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [130.129.23.203] (andrew.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.23.203]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SIuQ7gBI84Rg@rufus.isode.com>; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:02:38 +0100 Message-ID: <488B90E3.1010803@isode.com> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:02:27 +0100 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: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt References: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.com> <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.com> <20080721201530.GA9217@osmium.mv.net> <01MXF6PLK1XK00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> In-Reply-To: <01MXF6PLK1XK00007A@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: >>I guess that one thing we're trying to work around is the fact that >>systems that are the target of a notification message, and that might >>pass it on to where it loops back around, can't be relied on to pass >>whole headers, and so things like Received counting or looking at (e.g.) >>"Delivered-To" can't be counted on as those fields might get stripped. >>As might the original "Auto-Submitted" field, so this technique either >>relies on this field being preserved, or on one of the downstream notifiers >>or forwarders adding one of their own. That all strikes me as kind of >>shakey in addition to being a mis-use of this field. >> >> >Agreed. FWIW, my suggestion was to add a parameter to auto-submitted that >uniquely identifies the auto-submitter so that that can be checked and loops >detected that way. But this got shot down for some reason I no longer recall. > > I thought "owner-token" described in section 2.7.1 is your parameter? 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 m6NEviP4083080 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:57:45 -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 m6NEvie3083079; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:57:44 -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 m6NEvhK9083072 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:57:43 -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 <01MXHKJXYF4G00DOAH@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:57:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01MXGZPU198G00B837@mauve.mrochek.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:57:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1216825061; h=Date: From:Subject:MIME-version:Content-type; b=UhuSl5EqIeKK1CY614yULE4rD 8SdjrosAOTG+wE6fwkHPsxitR/Yz0nTNGhCTxkBCMKfy2AJZwr9vUKZoJ3x1w== Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:57:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Subject: Re: refuse/reject implementations? In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:55:58 -0400" <32BB6567DD96DEDC5D5CEDD4@ninevah.local> To: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name> Cc: IETF Sieve WG <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Message-id: <01MXHKJWJSO800B837@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <32BB6567DD96DEDC5D5CEDD4@ninevah.local> 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> > Has anyone done a complete implementation of the current refuse-reject > specification? We have. 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 m6NAhHUL062500 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:43:17 -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 m6NAhHmg062499; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:43:17 -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-out2.uio.no (mail-out2.uio.no [129.240.10.58]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6NAhE0N062491 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:43:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from kjetilho@ifi.uio.no) Received: from mail-mx2.uio.no ([129.240.10.30]) by mail-out2.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <kjetilho@ifi.uio.no>) id 1KLboP-0007Tn-24; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:43:13 +0200 Received: from smtp.uio.no ([129.240.10.9] helo=mail-mx2.uio.no) by mail-mx2.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <kjetilho@ifi.uio.no>) id 1KLboO-0003oA-RT; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:43:13 +0200 Received: from feh.linpro.no ([87.238.42.45]) by mail-mx2.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) user kjetilho (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <kjetilho@ifi.uio.no>) id 1KLboO-0003o4-Pk; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:43:12 +0200 Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho@ifi.uio.no> To: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz+@cmu.edu> Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org In-Reply-To: <2F3563A38FE3B8B0656DDA50@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu> References: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.com> <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.com> <20080721201530.GA9217@osmium.mv.net> <01MXF6PLK1XK00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> <JVj1aBG1EoWGVbMYjFmFbQ.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> <1216727161.20640.133.camel@feh.linpro.no> <gT8b9pNDp2Wa/IO1i6/Ocw.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> <1216728340.20640.139.camel@feh.linpro.no> <2F3563A38FE3B8B0656DDA50@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:43:11 +0200 Message-Id: <1216809791.20640.177.camel@feh.linpro.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 (2.22.3.1-1.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UiO-SPF-Received: X-UiO-Resend: resent X-UiO-SPF-Received: X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO) X-UiO-Scanned: B27E9C38F087CAC92F9ACAA98A32B541BF344B67 X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: Ratelimit X-UiO-SPAM-Test: UIO-RATELIMIT remote_host: 129.240.10.9 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 200 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 1209 total 9267434 max/h 8345 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 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 Tue, 2008-07-22 at 21:31 -0400, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho@ifi.uio.no> wrote: > > I think I'd prefer if this trick wasn't mentioned explicitly, but yes, I > > think that would be a valid implementation. The draft says > > > > The "Received:" fields from the triggering message MAY be > > retained in the notification message [...] > > > > and I personally would prefer it if implementations chose that route. > > That seems problematic, if any of the servers mentioned in those headers > also appear on the path the notification takes and are using them to do > loop detection. does anyone do this? such a scheme will be wrought with false positives in the presence of forwarding or even mailing lists, unless they expose detailed recipient information, which would conflict with privacy concerns. > The notification, which in fact is a _new_ message, has > _not_ been received or processed by those servers. its existence is a direct and automatic consequence of the original message, so I don't think it is unreasonable to be able to trace it back to the Prime Mover, as the ancient Greeks would say. > What's the point of this? Is it to drive the count of Received headers in > notifications up so high that they don't actually get through? basically, yes :-) seriously, the hop count limits are generally generous, so I don't think this will be a problem in practice. e.g., your server adds one Received, and mine adds three. Majordomo at IMC introduces 4 more hops, which brings the total to 8. that's a lot of lee-way for additional forwarding servers. -- regards, Kjetil T. 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 m6N2u30Z031084 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:56:03 -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 m6N2u3Sh031083; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:56:03 -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 daboo.name (daboo.name [151.201.22.177]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6N2u2lh031077 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:56:03 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from cyrus@daboo.name) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E2BEA91E0E for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:56:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at daboo.name Received: from daboo.name ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (chewy.mulberrymail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lpKHp30A5CEK for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:56:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (unknown [151.201.22.177]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89DB5A91E07 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:56:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:55:58 -0400 From: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name> To: IETF Sieve WG <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: refuse/reject implementations? Message-ID: <32BB6567DD96DEDC5D5CEDD4@ninevah.local> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.1.0a1 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline 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, Has anyone done a complete implementation of the current refuse-reject specification? I am working on the write-up for the IESG and I want to note if there are any implementations of this. -- Cyrus Daboo 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 m6MMq3Pf015405 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:52:03 -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 m6MMq3mx015404; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:52:03 -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 ladle.sendmail.com (ladle.sendmail.com [209.246.26.53]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6MMq16j015397 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:52:02 -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 m6MMuopS031204 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:56:50 -0700 Received: from [192.168.0.3] (adsl-64-58-1-252.mho.net [64.58.1.252] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by fife.sendmail.com (Switch-3.3.1/Switch-3.3.2mp) with ESMTP id m6MMpfrW017023 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:51:51 -0700 Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:51:40 -0600 From: Philip Guenther <guenther+mtafilters@sendmail.com> To: =?KOI8-R?B?5MnM0c4g8MHMwdXaz9c=?= <Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org> cc: IETF Sieve WG <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: redirect / ereject loops In-Reply-To: <4886523F.4030404@aegee.org> Message-ID: <alpine.BSO.1.10.0807221614190.330@vanye.mho.net> References: <4886523F.4030404@aegee.org> 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::080722155153-2128EB90-175ED91A/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 Tue, 22 Jul 2008, ????? ???????? wrote: > While you are talking about loops with "notify mailto", I would like to > ask you about loops with "redirect". I redirect the mail for my > university account to uni@mydomain, which has the following script: > > if header :contains "X-Spam-Level" "+++++" > { > redirect "me@mydomain"; > stop; > } > > So, when a spam arrives, the responsibility for the mail is taken and > the mail is redirected to me@mydomain. In the past me@mydomain moved > such mails to INBOX.Spam, but recently I changed the script to > > require ["ereject"]; > > if header :contains "X-Spam-Level" "+++++" > { > ereject "Your mail was evaluated as spam and was not delivered. > However you can contact me at +49 721 755345(h) or +49 176 20700494(m)."; > stop; > } > > and ereject does SMTP reject. Such redirecting script is also installed > for the postmaster@. When you say "Such redirecting script", do you mean the one for uni@mydomain which uses redirect, or the one for me@mydomain which uses ereject? > Now my question is, what happens with the spam > mail: it entered the system being accepted by uni@mydomain, but it > cannot end in a mailbox. _That_ message, the one with "X-Spam-Level: +++++", can't, but the ereject *may* result in a new message, a DSN (aka "bounce"). Whether it does so depends on the configuration of the mydomain sieve implementation. If the redirect just queues the redirected message without immediately trying to process it, then the ereject will result in a DSN coming back to the envelope sender of the redirect, which may be either uni@mydomain or the original envelope sender of the spam. If the redirection is processed to completion, including the ereject by the target address, then the original redirect will fail, which will then result in the original message being delivered to uni@mydomain's INBOX (c.f., rfc 5228, section 2.10.6, particularly the last paragraph). (Those are just two of the possible scenarios. Staring a log files may give you ideas for other possibilities.) > At the end it enters the postmaster mailbox, > bypassing somehow (to be figured out) the spam filter and growing to > 500k. If the DSN went to the original envelope sender, it will may be rejected by the far end, in which case it's a "double bounce", which often go to postmaster by default. For the postmaster account, ereject is just a Bad Idea. Use discard. Perform spam rejection early/at the edge: forwarding spam to some other account is just a problem waiting to happen. I have uploaded one such message at > https://mail.aegee.org/~didopalauzov/Automatically%20rejected%20mail.eml > . Ha, nice. Looks like a bounce loop all right. Note that the sieve implementation there is violating the MIME spec by using multipart boundary strings that are present in the message being wrapped: "$pid/$host" ain't good enough. 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 m6MMk0uJ014740 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:46:00 -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 m6MMk0AE014739; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:46:00 -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 mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6MMjqVx014724 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:45:59 -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 <01MXGMM0UQAO0051CW@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:45:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01MXG61YMJNK00007A@mauve.mrochek.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:45:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1216766751; h=Date: From:Subject:MIME-version:Content-type; b=LfIH/R3XU90rsJ/GeLB96oDAp Wl0im3L0+juBRydhCq3EvePSNKuvuFQ77k7Y99i2LGkNW0496Ci0EWWNC+ZoQ== Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:04:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Subject: Re: redirect / ereject loops In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:33:51 +0200" <4886523F.4030404@aegee.org> To: =?UTF-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= <Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org> Cc: IETF Sieve WG <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Message-id: <01MXGMM00ZF600007A@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <4886523F.4030404@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> > While you are talking about loops with "notify mailto", I would like to > ask you about loops with "redirect". These are very different cases. Perhaps the biggest difference is that loop detection via Received: fields is much easier with redirect since its the same message rather than a different one. > I redirect the mail for my > university account to uni@mydomain, which has the following script: > if header :contains "X-Spam-Level" "+++++" > { > redirect "me@mydomain"; > stop; > } > So, when a spam arrives, the responsibility for the mail is taken and > the mail is redirected to me@mydomain. In the past me@mydomain moved > such mails to INBOX.Spam, but recently I changed the script to > require ["ereject"]; > if header :contains "X-Spam-Level" "+++++" > { > ereject "Your mail was evaluated as spam and was not delivered. > However you can contact me at +49 721 755345(h) or +49 176 20700494(m)."; > stop; > } First of all, using any sort of SMTP level reject on an interior MtA is a bad idea. The problem is once a message enters an administrative domain your options narrow down to discarding it, delivering it, or returning a nondelivery notification. The option of simply telling the outside sender the message was rejected no longer exists, and that's the one case where ereject is useful. Now, in this specific case, you have two sieves on different systems, the first redirecting to the second and the second performing an ereject. What happens is going to depend on what redirect did to the envelope from address. The base Sieve specification allows substantial leeway here. If it is left unchanged then the nondelivery notification will go back to the (likely forged) original sender's address. And lo and behold you've just become a blowback spam generator. But this is the result of improper use of ereject, not a problem with redirect. Alternately, the Sieve implementation could have changed the envelope from to the owner of the Sieve script. In this case what should happen is that the nondelivery notification will go to the Sieve owner, causing the script with the redirect to be invoked again. If in the process the message has again been checked for spam and has been judged to be spammy, the nondelivery notification will then be redirected. But since the nondelivery notification is required to have a blank envelope from address and redirect is forbidden from changing a blank envelope from into a nonblank envelope from, when the ereject is reached again this time it will cause the message to be silently discarded. So in this case the message ends up getting silently dropped. And your ereject has turned into a discard after taking several extra hops and comsuming a bunch more resources. It is also possible that wrapping the original spammy message inside a nondelivery notification will prevent it from be found to be spammy a second time. In this case the redirect won't trigger and the message will get delivered on the first system. In this case your ereject led to a pointless nondelivery notification being sent to someone. One final possibility is that the Sieve implementation elected to put some other address in the envelope from. In that case what happens would depend on where that address leads, but once again you have a pointless nondelivery notification being sent somehwere it's not needed. The main takeaway here is that in no case is the use of ereject actually of benefit. > and ereject does SMTP reject. Such redirecting script is also installed > for the postmaster@. Now my question is, what happens with the spam > mail: it entered the system being accepted by uni@mydomain, but it > cannot end in a mailbox. Quite the contrary, depending on various factors it can easily end up in a mailbox somewhere. See above. > At the end it enters the postmaster mailbox, > bypassing somehow (to be figured out) the spam filter and growing to > 500k. I have uploaded one such message at > https://mail.aegee.org/~didopalauzov/Automatically%20rejected%20mail.eml . This shows that you have managed to create a notification loop. This in turn means that something in your setup is not in compliance with the relevant standards. More specifically, either (1) The SMTP client receiving the result of the ereject is generating a nondelivery notification with a nonempty envelope form - an egregious violation of several standards documents or (2) Something along the path is filling in the empty envelope from - a violation of the requirements in RFC 5228 section 4.2. My guess is it's (2) - this case is exactly why the "don't muck with empty envelope froms" rule was imposed. > Is this normal? No. The only way this can happen is if there's breakage somewhere. > Any ideas what to do? Fix whatever is incompliant in your setup and reconsider your use of ereject in this context. 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 m6MLY0cC010484 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:34:00 -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 m6MLY0iD010483; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:34:00 -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 smtp.aegee.uni-karlsruhe.de (smtp.aegee.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.62.220]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6MLXvni010476 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:34:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org) Received: from smtp.aegee.org (aegeeserv.aegee.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.131.80]) by smtp2.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 4.63 #1) id 1KLPUa-0006ku-Hs; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:33:56 +0200 X-Mail-Sent-By-AEGEE.org-Account: didopalauzov Received: from [192.168.1.10] (d90-128-28-82.cust.tele2.de [90.128.28.82]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.aegee.org (8.14.3/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m6MLXsXk028373 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:33:56 GMT Message-ID: <4886523F.4030404@aegee.org> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:33:51 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= <Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF Sieve WG <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: redirect / ereject loops Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93.3/7789/Tue Jul 22 21:16:23 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, While you are talking about loops with "notify mailto", I would like to ask you about loops with "redirect". I redirect the mail for my university account to uni@mydomain, which has the following script: if header :contains "X-Spam-Level" "+++++" { redirect "me@mydomain"; stop; } So, when a spam arrives, the responsibility for the mail is taken and the mail is redirected to me@mydomain. In the past me@mydomain moved such mails to INBOX.Spam, but recently I changed the script to require ["ereject"]; if header :contains "X-Spam-Level" "+++++" { ereject "Your mail was evaluated as spam and was not delivered. However you can contact me at +49 721 755345(h) or +49 176 20700494(m)."; stop; } and ereject does SMTP reject. Such redirecting script is also installed for the postmaster@. Now my question is, what happens with the spam mail: it entered the system being accepted by uni@mydomain, but it cannot end in a mailbox. At the end it enters the postmaster mailbox, bypassing somehow (to be figured out) the spam filter and growing to 500k. I have uploaded one such message at https://mail.aegee.org/~didopalauzov/Automatically%20rejected%20mail.eml . Is this normal? Any ideas what to do? СÑÑ Ð·Ð´Ñаве, 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 m6MHDgLA086376 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:13:42 -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 m6MHDgRD086375; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:13:42 -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 m6MHDU0l086339 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:13:41 -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 <01MXGAZUA1YO00E95C@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:13:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01MXG61YMJNK00007A@mauve.mrochek.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:13:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1216746803; h=Date: From:Subject:MIME-version:Content-type; b=lU77xJy2dcLSGSajNKp8GDUby Iom/8CMwWTT3oTU+c/zJTh80SKZa262qI2+wNt/22DcOjrAzmBkJGd10DEqsA== Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:05:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:36:21 -0400" <A9BE34EE443FA0C9C36E1BD0@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu> To: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz+@cmu.edu> Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, Mark E Mallett <mem@mv.mv.com>, Barry Leiba <leiba@watson.ibm.com>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org, jhutz@cmu.edu Message-id: <01MXGAZSBHTA00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.com> <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.com> <20080721201530.GA9217@osmium.mv.net> <01MXF6PLK1XK00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> <A9BE34EE443FA0C9C36E1BD0@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.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> > > P.S. I'm also quite worried given the reception the Sieve base got in > > regards to the looping potential of redirect that this draft is going to > > receive at least one DISCUSS vote from the IESG that's going to be very > > difficult to satisfy. > As noted above, I think this is very different from redirect, because we > are generating a new message to a (presumably fixed) recipient, not > forwarding or responding to an existing message. FWIW, the Sieve variables extensions makes variable (in the sense that they depend on the input message) possible. For example: require ["notify", "mailto"]; if address :matches "from" "*" { notify :message "blah blah" :importance "3" "mailto:${1}"; } However, given that addresses can be and sometimes are handled by the routing fabric in fairly perverse ways, including various highly dynamic routing schemes, I don't think this changes the situation much if at all. 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 m6MFJvLN074477 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:19:57 -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 m6MFJvsL074476; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:19:57 -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 mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6MFJuMv074470 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:19:56 -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 <01MXG713L8SW00CXSV@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:19:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01MXG61YMJNK00007A@mauve.mrochek.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:19:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1216739992; h=Date: From:Subject:MIME-version:Content-type; b=vvQqDilVL6BBBDeUEwH1HNstx rVesvpCbjhNIMd8Szz8FhhzkAvf6vS5Tx/OuBWc4MgdWSfpUx1hHNWr7K3C5w== Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:04:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:33:14 +0200" <q2EjFWC6JX9C0QTMcuoMjw.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, Barry Leiba <leiba@watson.ibm.com>, Mark E Mallett <mem@mv.mv.com> Message-id: <01MXG712DYZO00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.com> <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.com> <20080721201530.GA9217@osmium.mv.net> <01MXF6PLK1XK00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> <q2EjFWC6JX9C0QTMcuoMjw.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> > Ned Freed writes, quoting Mark E. Mallett: > >> I don't think that "Auto-Submitted" is a strong indicator of a > >> non-notifiable message, and as I've said I can imagine cases where > >> it's just the opposite. > > > > Exactly. One of the main use cases we have for Sieve notify is in > > what I believe they call a "sensitive" environment - not cut off > > completely from the rest of the world, but with strict rules about > > what can and cannot cross boundaries. Since messages, including > > various sorts of notifications, cannot leave this environment, the > > goal is to generate notifications that basically say "there's > > soemthing over here you need to look at" but which never say any more > > than that and send those out. (Yes, I'm well aware of the potential > > for traffic analysis here, but I'm not the one who designed or > > specified any off this.) In this use case it is critically important > > that all messages be able to generate such a notification. As for > > loops, they cannot occur since these notification messages can only > > leave, not reenter. > Suppose there were some header field which carried enough identification > to avoid loops. Perhaps a widely supported header field called > "Message-Based-On:" with a list of message-ids. There isn't any such > thing, but suppose there were. Since message-ids are generated by clients they leak information about what client someone uses. I don't know if such leakage is acceptable; I suspect not. > IWould the rules of that sensitive prevent use of Message-Based-On? My guess is yes. > I have a feeling that the rules would forbid leaking those message-ids > back out of the sensitive area. If that feeling is right, then there is > a basic conflict between your customer's needs and the IESG/IETF rules. I don't see it. AFAIK nobody is proposing using message-ids or any sort of information that originates with clients for this. And any identifier that appears in an auto-submitted field is not comparabie, for several reasons: (1) MUAs generate auto-submitted fields rarely, and in the cases where they do they aren't going to insert a parameter we have yet to specify. (2) The internal MTAs that generate this paramster may do so using their own names, but those names are already present in other header fields in notifucations, so this leaks no additional information. It is already accepted that traffic analysis can be performed here. (3) Even if for some reason we clients to be able to generate such a parameter, since this is a new parameter we can specify a one way hash scheme for it. In any case, I only mentioned this proposal in passing; the addition of a new header field to the trace header set is a fairly big deal and I'm not sure it is warranted to solve this particular problem. 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 m6MF1Fow072621 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:01:15 -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 m6MF1Fal072620; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:01:15 -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 mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [64.170.98.32]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6MF1DWX072613 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:01:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from root@core3.amsl.com) Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id A8D0228C0EF; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:00:01 -0700 (PDT) From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: ietf-announce@ietf.org Cc: cyrus@daboo.name, alexey.melnikov@isode.com, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: WG Review: Recharter of Sieve Mail Filtering (sieve) reply-to: iesg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20080722150001.A8D0228C0EF@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:00:01 -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> A modified charter has been submitted for the Sieve Mail Filtering (sieve) working group in the Applications Area of the IETF. The IESG has not made any determination as yet. The modified charter is provided below for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) July 28, 2008. Sieve Mail Filtering (sieve) --------------------------------------------------- Last Modified: 2008-07-02 Current Status: Active Working Group Chair(s): Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name> Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Applications Area Director(s): Chris Newman <chris.newman@sun.com> Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org> Applications Area Advisor: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org> Mailing Lists: General Discussion: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org To Subscribe: ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org Archive: http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/ Description of Working Group: The SIEVE email filtering language is specified in RFC 5228, together with a number of extensions. The SIEVE working group is being re-chartered to: (1) Finish work on existing in-progress Working Group documents: (a) Notify mailto (draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto.txt) (b) Edit header (draft-ietf-sieve-editheader-10.txt) (c) Mime loops (draft-ietf-sieve-mime-loop-04.txt) (d) Refuse/reject (draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-06.txt) (2) Finalize and publish the following SIEVE extensions as proposed standards: (a) iHave (draft-freed-sieve-ihave-02.txt) (b) Notary (draft-freed-sieve-notary-01.txt) (c) SIEVE in XML (draft-freed-sieve-in-xml-01.txt) (d) Notify-sip (draft-melnikov-sieve-notify-sip-message-01.txt) (e) ManageSIEVE (draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt) (f) RegEx (draft-ietf-sieve-regex-00.txt) (g) Meta-data (draft-melnikov-sieve-imapext-metadata-04.txt) (h) Include/multi-script (draft-daboo-sieve-include-05.txt) (i) Address data (draft-melnikov-sieve-external-lists-01) Additional drafts may be added to this list, but only via a charter revision. There must also be demonstrable willingness in the SIEVE development community to actually implement a given extension before it can be added to this charter. (3) Work on a specification to describe how EAI/IDN issues should be handled in SIEVE. (4) Work on a "Benefits of SIEVE" guide for client and server vendors that: (a) Describes the SIEVE protocol and its suite of extensions. (b) Explains the benefits of server-side filtering in practical terms. (c) Shows how client-side filtering can be migrated to SIEVE. (5) Produce one or more informational RFCs containing a set of test scripts and test email messages that are to be filtered by the scripts, and the expected results of that filtering. This will serve as the basis of a interoperability test suite to help determine the suitability of moving the base specification and selected extensions to Draft status. Goals and milestones: July 2008: Submit notify-mailto to IESG Submit refuse-reject to IESG August 2008: Submit mime-loops to IESG WGLC iHave September 2008: Submit iHave to IESG WGLC Notary October 2008: WGLC sieve-in-xml Submit Notary to IESG November 2008: Submit sieve-in-xml to IESG WGLC ManageSIEVE December 2008: Submit ManageSIEVE to IESG WGLC Notify-sip January 2009: Submit Notify-sip to IESG WGLC Metadata February 2009: Submit Metadata to IESG WGLC RegEx March 2009 Submit RegEx to IESG WGLC Include/multi-script April 2009: Submit Include/multi-script to IESG WGLC external-lists May 2009: Submit external-lists to IESG WGLC eai-issues June 2009: Submit eai-issues to IESG WGLC benefits July 2009: Submit benefits to IESG WGLC test-scripts August 2009: Submit test-scripts to IESG 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 m6MDHF7v060756 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 06:17:15 -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 m6MDHFau060755; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 06:17:15 -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 kalyani.oryx.com (kalyani.oryx.com [195.30.37.30]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6MDHDeI060749 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 06:17:14 -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 74FF64AC5B; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:17:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 195.30.37.40 (HELO lochnagar.oryx.com) by kalyani.oryx.com with esmtp id 1216732617-96643-458; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:16:57 +0200 Message-Id: <mRwinaxq3XwB+cna225GtQ.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:15:04 +0200 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt Cc: Nigel Swinson <Nigel.Swinson@mailsite.com>, Barry Leiba <leiba@watson.ibm.com> References: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.com> <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.com> <008501c8ebfa$f47f1660$6e2c2a0a@rockliffe.com> In-Reply-To: <008501c8ebfa$f47f1660$6e2c2a0a@rockliffe.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> Nigel Swinson writes: > So this whole discussion has made me very reluctant to go anywhere > near implementing sieve-notify-mailto, rather sticking to SMS > notifications and redirect if I can. I wanted to do the same thing, but then I found out that the base notify document says you MUST implement mailto. 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 m6MD0mbi058370 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 06:00:48 -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 m6MD0maj058369; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 06:00:48 -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.rockliffe.com (mail.rockliffe.com [216.34.131.10]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6MD0lo8058362 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 06:00:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from Nigel.Swinson@mailsite.com) X-Spam-Score-scoring_explanation: X-Spam-Score-spf_status: X-Spam-Score-Spamcatcher1: a7d1ebdfdca2baf9dc4e68c6d7702445 X-Spam-Score-Summary: 2,0,0,fdb3bdb5c82d7165,a0ea87fb493ec7f7,nigel.swinson@mailsite.com,leiba@watson.ibm.com:ietf-mta-filters@imc.org,RULES_HIT:355:379:539:540:541:542:543:567:599:601:945:973:980:988:989:1155:1156:1261:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1542:1587:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1766:1792:2073:2075:2078:2393:2553:2559:2562:2828:2892:2901:3027:3355:3740:3865:3866:3867:3868:3869:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:3876:3877:4250:5007:6114:6119:6248:6261:7903,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:,MSBL:none,DNSBL:none X-Spam-Score-rbl_summary: none X-Spam-Score-Phishing_status: no X-Spam-Score-Countries: X-Spam-Score-Charsets: iso-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: 1 Received: from nigel (unverified [10.42.44.110]) by mail.rockliffe.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 9.0.1) with ESMTP id <B0000919617@mail.rockliffe.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 06:00:45 -0700 Message-ID: <008501c8ebfa$f47f1660$6e2c2a0a@rockliffe.com> From: "Nigel Swinson" <Nigel.Swinson@mailsite.com> To: "Barry Leiba" <leiba@watson.ibm.com> Cc: <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> References: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.com> <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.com> Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:00:43 +0100 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 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 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'm looking for consensus on one of these: > > 1. Using Auto-Submitted to avoid loops -- and, therefore, the risk of > loops if we send notifications for auto-submitted messages -- is > sufficiently important that the current "MUST NOT" text should stay. > > 2. The use cases for notifications on auto-submitted messages are > sufficiently important that the text should be changed. [Please suggest > new text, in this case.] > > 3. "SHOULD NOT" is an acceptable compromise. The current "MUST NOT" > should be changed to "SHOULD NOT", with some added text to explain the > danger very clearly. [In this case, you can suggest text, or I'll craft > it.] > > Let's try to get clear consensus on this. I propose that in the event of > no clear consensus, we have to go with (3). I'm with option 3 just now. My reasons, some of which have already been touched on: I think the intent of sieve-notify was to do things like notify mobile devices, or at least devices with some limited resources that the user has more immediate access to. Re-scanning the abstract seems to back this up. As such I think those devices are very unlikely to auto-reply to anything, or if they do, then it may not be until they make a connection and receive the notification, which would lead for a very slow mail loop. But then what I think the intent of sieve-notify is, and what it'll get used for can of course be completely different. Sieve-notify-mailto is therefore in some ways a poor fit with sieve-notify, cos the target could very very easily be capable and willing to auto-reply, in which case mail loops become much more likely and dangerous (hence we are having this discussion). If the purpose of sieve-notify-mailto is to hide sensitive information from the inbound message, then I wonder if it's better handled by modifying redirect rather than piggy backing onto sieve-notify, then we're not adding to the existing mail loop concerns created by the use of redirect, and standard loop prevention mechanisms apply. I think the use cases proposed to make folks vote for option 2 would be better handled by an alternative notification mechanism like SMS where no auto-reply is expected, and therefore there's a greatly reduced loop risk. Option 1/3 both try to create a "no auto-repsonse" mimicing what is expected by the other sieve-notify mechanisms that it was originally designed for. So this whole discussion has made me very reluctant to go anywhere near implementing sieve-notify-mailto, rather sticking to SMS notifications and redirect if I can. Nigel 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 m6MC5hEn052420 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:05:43 -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 m6MC5h21052419; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:05:43 -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-out1.uio.no (mail-out1.uio.no [129.240.10.57]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6MC5f7V052406 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:05:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from kjetilho@ifi.uio.no) Received: from mail-mx1.uio.no ([129.240.10.29]) by mail-out1.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <kjetilho@ifi.uio.no>) id 1KLGce-00057n-S6; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:05:40 +0200 Received: from smtp.uio.no ([129.240.10.9] helo=mail-mx1.uio.no) by mail-mx1.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <kjetilho@ifi.uio.no>) id 1KLGce-0006Lb-LR; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:05:40 +0200 Received: from feh.linpro.no ([87.238.42.45]) by mail-mx1.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) user kjetilho (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <kjetilho@ifi.uio.no>) id 1KLGce-0006LM-Jc; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:05:40 +0200 Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho@ifi.uio.no> To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org In-Reply-To: <gT8b9pNDp2Wa/IO1i6/Ocw.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> References: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.com> <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.com> <20080721201530.GA9217@osmium.mv.net> <01MXF6PLK1XK00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> <JVj1aBG1EoWGVbMYjFmFbQ.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> <1216727161.20640.133.camel@feh.linpro.no> <gT8b9pNDp2Wa/IO1i6/Ocw.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:05:40 +0200 Message-Id: <1216728340.20640.139.camel@feh.linpro.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 (2.22.3.1-1.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UiO-SPF-Received: X-UiO-Resend: resent X-UiO-SPF-Received: X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO) X-UiO-Scanned: C0590B871B78F562E0A045FE4FDEF7D57D03F12C X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 129.240.10.9 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 200 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 85 total 9258845 max/h 8345 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 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> On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 13:50 +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > Kjetil Torgrim Homme writes: > > Here's an alternative compromise: An implementation can not send a > > notification in response to a message with "Auto-submitted: !no" > > unless the number of Received headers in the notification messages is > > higher than in the original message. > > You mean by generating dummy fields? > > Received: by <host> (dummy inserted by sieve); <date> > Received: by <host> (dummy inserted by sieve); <date> > Received: by <host> (dummy inserted by sieve); <date> I think I'd prefer if this trick wasn't mentioned explicitly, but yes, I think that would be a valid implementation. The draft says The "Received:" fields from the triggering message MAY be retained in the notification message [...] and I personally would prefer it if implementations chose that route. > I'm not in favour, but I can live with that too if that's what it takes > to get WG consensus, IESG blessing and an RFC. ok. -- regards, Kjetil T. 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 m6MBqj6s050525 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:52:45 -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 m6MBqjDO050524; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:52:45 -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 kalyani.oryx.com (kalyani.oryx.com [195.30.37.30]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6MBqhMK050517 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:52:44 -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 D5AB54AC5B; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:52:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 195.30.37.40 (HELO lochnagar.oryx.com) by kalyani.oryx.com with esmtp id 1216727547-96643-433; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:52:27 +0200 Message-Id: <gT8b9pNDp2Wa/IO1i6/Ocw.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:50:34 +0200 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt Cc: Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho@ifi.uio.no> References: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.com> <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.com> <20080721201530.GA9217@osmium.mv.net> <01MXF6PLK1XK00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> <JVj1aBG1EoWGVbMYjFmFbQ.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> <1216727161.20640.133.camel@feh.linpro.no> In-Reply-To: <1216727161.20640.133.camel@feh.linpro.no> 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> Kjetil Torgrim Homme writes: > On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 12:47 +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: >> These are two of the three (or four) options I'm aware of. The third >> is to accept that mail loops happen, but make them less harmful by >> slowing them down. A thousand messages per day isn't so bad, at >> least not compared to 100,000. >> >> It's also possible to combine. The document could say "If the >> incoming message has an Auto-Submitted field, a return-path of <>, >> or other signs that it was automatically generated, then the >> outgoing notification MUST be delayed by at least two minutes", >> with reference RFC 4865 informatively. > > This is just too ugly. Users will be forcing implementers to add an > override for this behaviour. Sure. I'd make the period configurable in my own code, down to 1 second. What about it? >> I'm not really in favour of such a rule. I like the simple >> Auto-Submitted rule. I'm just mentioning this since it is a >> possibility, since we need to find some compromise rule that >> everyone can live with, and this is an area we haven't discussed. > > Here's an alternative compromise: An implementation can not send a > notification in response to a message with "Auto-submitted: !no" > unless the number of Received headers in the notification messages is > higher than in the original message. You mean by generating dummy fields? Received: by <host> (dummy inserted by sieve); <date> Received: by <host> (dummy inserted by sieve); <date> Received: by <host> (dummy inserted by sieve); <date> I'm not in favour, but I can live with that too if that's what it takes to get WG consensus, IESG blessing and an RFC. 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 m6MBkA6Q048995 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:46:10 -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 m6MBkAus048994; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:46:10 -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 mail-out1.uio.no (mail-out1.uio.no [129.240.10.57]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6MBk3KD048977 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:46:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from kjetilho@ifi.uio.no) Received: from mail-mx6.uio.no ([129.240.10.47]) by mail-out1.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <kjetilho@ifi.uio.no>) id 1KLGJe-0008Ps-9D; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:46:02 +0200 Received: from smtp.uio.no ([129.240.10.9] helo=mail-mx6.uio.no) by mail-mx6.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <kjetilho@ifi.uio.no>) id 1KLGJe-0003Mb-0K; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:46:02 +0200 Received: from feh.linpro.no ([87.238.42.45]) by mail-mx6.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) user kjetilho (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <kjetilho@ifi.uio.no>) id 1KLGJd-0003MR-TQ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:46:01 +0200 Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho@ifi.uio.no> To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org In-Reply-To: <JVj1aBG1EoWGVbMYjFmFbQ.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> References: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.com> <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.com> <20080721201530.GA9217@osmium.mv.net> <01MXF6PLK1XK00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> <JVj1aBG1EoWGVbMYjFmFbQ.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:46:00 +0000 Message-Id: <1216727161.20640.133.camel@feh.linpro.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 (2.22.3.1-1.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UiO-SPF-Received: X-UiO-Resend: resent X-UiO-SPF-Received: X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO) X-UiO-Scanned: C6F35F4D8AF821BE82BD5D473AD9AB743BE7383E X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 129.240.10.9 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 200 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 460 total 9258595 max/h 8345 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 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> > Ned Freed writes: > > FWIW, my suggestion was to add a parameter to auto-submitted that > > uniquely identifies the auto-submitter so that that can be checked > > and loops detected that way. But this got shot down for some reason I > > no longer recall. If we could trust that Auto-submitted doesn't get clobbered, it would suffice to say that a message containing an "Auto-submitted: auto-notified" header should be silently ignored. Unfortunately, I don't think we can trust that Auto-submitted is truly handled as a trace header (ie. multiple instance header) in the multitude of homegrown applications out there sending automatic responses. On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 12:47 +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > These are two of the three (or four) options I'm aware of. The third is > to accept that mail loops happen, but make them less harmful by slowing > them down. A thousand messages per day isn't so bad, at least not > compared to 100,000. > > It's also possible to combine. The document could say "If the incoming > message has an Auto-Submitted field, a return-path of <>, or other > signs that it was automatically generated, then the outgoing > notification MUST be delayed by at least two minutes", with reference > RFC 4865 informatively. This is just too ugly. Users will be forcing implementers to add an override for this behaviour. > I'm not really in favour of such a rule. I like the simple > Auto-Submitted rule. I'm just mentioning this since it is a > possibility, since we need to find some compromise rule that everyone > can live with, and this is an area we haven't discussed. Here's an alternative compromise: An implementation can not send a notification in response to a message with "Auto-submitted: !no" unless the number of Received headers in the notification messages is higher than in the original message. -- regards, Kjetil T. 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 m6MAnwYU043624 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:49:58 -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 m6MAnwaX043623; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:49:58 -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 m6MAnvmV043615 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:49:58 -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 9E6D74AC68; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:49:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 195.30.37.40 (HELO lochnagar.oryx.com) by kalyani.oryx.com with esmtp id 1216723781-96643-388; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:49:41 +0200 Message-Id: <JVj1aBG1EoWGVbMYjFmFbQ.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:47:48 +0200 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, Barry Leiba <leiba@watson.ibm.com>, Mark E Mallett <mem@mv.mv.com> References: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.com> <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.com> <20080721201530.GA9217@osmium.mv.net> <01MXF6PLK1XK00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> In-Reply-To: <01MXF6PLK1XK00007A@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> Ned Freed writes: > FWIW, my suggestion was to add a parameter to auto-submitted that > uniquely identifies the auto-submitter so that that can be checked > and loops detected that way. But this got shot down for some reason I > no longer recall. > > I also object somewhat to copying Received: fields over that in fact > correspond to hops that a totally different message took. The > relationship between the notification message and the message that > triggered it is just too tenuous. This is a kluge, and IMO not a > terribly good one. These are two of the three (or four) options I'm aware of. The third is to accept that mail loops happen, but make them less harmful by slowing them down. A thousand messages per day isn't so bad, at least not compared to 100,000. It's also possible to combine. The document could say "If the incoming message has an Auto-Submitted field, a return-path of <>, or other signs that it was automatically generated, then the outgoing notification MUST be delayed by at least two minutes", with reference RFC 4865 informatively. I'm not really in favour of such a rule. I like the simple Auto-Submitted rule. I'm just mentioning this since it is a possibility, since we need to find some compromise rule that everyone can live with, and this is an area we haven't discussed. 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 m6MAZRHg042361 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:35:27 -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 m6MAZQjB042360; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:35:27 -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 m6MAZOH4042350 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:35:25 -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 CDFC94AC1B; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:35:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 195.30.37.40 (HELO lochnagar.oryx.com) by kalyani.oryx.com with esmtp id 1216722907-96643-376; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:35:07 +0200 Message-Id: <q2EjFWC6JX9C0QTMcuoMjw.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:33:14 +0200 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, Barry Leiba <leiba@watson.ibm.com>, Mark E Mallett <mem@mv.mv.com> References: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.com> <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.com> <20080721201530.GA9217@osmium.mv.net> <01MXF6PLK1XK00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> In-Reply-To: <01MXF6PLK1XK00007A@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> Ned Freed writes, quoting Mark E. Mallett: >> I don't think that "Auto-Submitted" is a strong indicator of a >> non-notifiable message, and as I've said I can imagine cases where >> it's just the opposite. > > Exactly. One of the main use cases we have for Sieve notify is in > what I believe they call a "sensitive" environment - not cut off > completely from the rest of the world, but with strict rules about > what can and cannot cross boundaries. Since messages, including > various sorts of notifications, cannot leave this environment, the > goal is to generate notifications that basically say "there's > soemthing over here you need to look at" but which never say any more > than that and send those out. (Yes, I'm well aware of the potential > for traffic analysis here, but I'm not the one who designed or > specified any off this.) In this use case it is critically important > that all messages be able to generate such a notification. As for > loops, they cannot occur since these notification messages can only > leave, not reenter. Suppose there were some header field which carried enough identification to avoid loops. Perhaps a widely supported header field called "Message-Based-On:" with a list of message-ids. There isn't any such thing, but suppose there were. IWould the rules of that sensitive prevent use of Message-Based-On? I have a feeling that the rules would forbid leaking those message-ids back out of the sensitive area. If that feeling is right, then there is a basic conflict between your customer's needs and the IESG/IETF rules. Arnt (PS: Another, unrelated reply in a moment.) 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 m6LLxxZl074524 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:59:59 -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 m6LLxxsb074523; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:59:59 -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 mauve.mrochek.com (dsl-66-59-230-40.static.linkline.com [66.59.230.40]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6LLxqiE074513 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:59:57 -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 <01MXF6PMOF6O00DE8S@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:59:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01MXF3GB23JK00007A@mauve.mrochek.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:59:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1216677590; h=Date: From:Subject:MIME-version:Content-type; b=kQnRoAlPIUtpXIO1lm8r0ByKm XQBQrem+C7LVKHspiiFH5SaeRoI+wh06v3cjfeFLEuJF1gydmMnEUpE0fjCKQ== Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:44:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:15:30 -0400" <20080721201530.GA9217@osmium.mv.net> To: Mark E Mallett <mem@mv.mv.com> Cc: Barry Leiba <leiba@watson.ibm.com>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Message-id: <01MXF6PLK1XK00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.com> <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.com> <20080721201530.GA9217@osmium.mv.net> 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, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:17:32AM -0400, Barry Leiba wrote: > > So, everyone: if you consider yourself an active participant, please > > send a message to this mailing list within the next, say, week, stating > > (briefly) your position on this. There's no need for a lot of > > explanation, because the reasons on both sides are clear. > > > > I'm looking for consensus on one of these: > > > > 1. Using Auto-Submitted to avoid loops -- and, therefore, the risk of > > loops if we send notifications for auto-submitted messages -- is > > sufficiently important that the current "MUST NOT" text should stay. > > > > 2. The use cases for notifications on auto-submitted messages are > > sufficiently important that the text should be changed. [Please suggest > > new text, in this case.] > > > > 3. "SHOULD NOT" is an acceptable compromise. The current "MUST NOT" > > should be changed to "SHOULD NOT", with some added text to explain the > > danger very clearly. [In this case, you can suggest text, or I'll craft > > it.] > I can't find any camp to be in, but I feel that #2 is closest. I'm in much the same position. > I don't > think that "Auto-Submitted" is a strong indicator of a non-notifiable > message, and as I've said I can imagine cases where it's just the opposite. Exactly. One of the main use cases we have for Sieve notify is in what I believe they call a "sensitive" environment - not cut off completely from the rest of the world, but with strict rules about what can and cannot cross boundaries. Since messages, including various sorts of notifications, cannot leave this environment, the goal is to generate notifications that basically say "there's soemthing over here you need to look at" but which never say any more than that and send those out. (Yes, I'm well aware of the potential for traffic analysis here, but I'm not the one who designed or specified any off this.) In this use case it is critically important that all messages be able to generate such a notification. As for loops, they cannot occur since these notification messages can only leave, not reenter. I could describe at least one other use-case where notifications cannot be blocked by auto-submitted fields, but I think this makes the point. > I guess that one thing we're trying to work around is the fact that > systems that are the target of a notification message, and that might > pass it on to where it loops back around, can't be relied on to pass > whole headers, and so things like Received counting or looking at (e.g.) > "Delivered-To" can't be counted on as those fields might get stripped. > As might the original "Auto-Submitted" field, so this technique either > relies on this field being preserved, or on one of the downstream notifiers > or forwarders adding one of their own. That all strikes me as kind of > shakey in addition to being a mis-use of this field. Agreed. FWIW, my suggestion was to add a parameter to auto-submitted that uniquely identifies the auto-submitter so that that can be checked and loops detected that way. But this got shot down for some reason I no longer recall. I also object somewhat to copying Received: fields over that in fact correspond to hops that a totally different message took. The relationship between the notification message and the message that triggered it is just too tenuous. This is a kluge, and IMO not a terribly good one. > So I feel that it's important to make a note about loop prevention; that > it's hard to do when it's a possibility that most header fields will get > stripped; but that that doesn't make using "Auto-Submitted" any more > palatable. I wish I had text to propose, other than just a strong note > that somehow detecting loops should be a priority of the implementor. I tried writing text for this some time ago. Didn't get anything worth posting. > I also think that the "MUST NOT" under discussion is almost certain to > be violated, so I would vote against that. Our implementation is definitely one that's going to violate it, although we'll probabky make the check configurable and have it default "on". We simply don't have a choice here - too many important customers depend on this capability and if we don't provide it I'm sure someone else will be happy to. Ned P.S. I'm also quite worried given the reception the Sieve base got in regards to the looping potential of redirect that this draft is going to receive at least one DISCUSS vote from the IESG that's going to be very difficult to satisfy. 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 m6LKFWj2068592 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:15:32 -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 m6LKFWfJ068591; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:15:32 -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 shell.mv.net (osmium.mv.net [199.125.85.152]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id m6LKFVXu068583 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:15:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mem@mv.mv.com) Received: (qmail 14198 invoked by uid 101); 21 Jul 2008 16:15:30 -0400 From: "Mark E. Mallett" <mem@mv.mv.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:15:30 -0400 To: Barry Leiba <leiba@watson.ibm.com> Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt Message-ID: <20080721201530.GA9217@osmium.mv.net> References: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.com> <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i 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, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:17:32AM -0400, Barry Leiba wrote: > So, everyone: if you consider yourself an active participant, please > send a message to this mailing list within the next, say, week, stating > (briefly) your position on this. There's no need for a lot of > explanation, because the reasons on both sides are clear. > > I'm looking for consensus on one of these: > > 1. Using Auto-Submitted to avoid loops -- and, therefore, the risk of > loops if we send notifications for auto-submitted messages -- is > sufficiently important that the current "MUST NOT" text should stay. > > 2. The use cases for notifications on auto-submitted messages are > sufficiently important that the text should be changed. [Please suggest > new text, in this case.] > > 3. "SHOULD NOT" is an acceptable compromise. The current "MUST NOT" > should be changed to "SHOULD NOT", with some added text to explain the > danger very clearly. [In this case, you can suggest text, or I'll craft > it.] I can't find any camp to be in, but I feel that #2 is closest. I don't think that "Auto-Submitted" is a strong indicator of a non-notifiable message, and as I've said I can imagine cases where it's just the opposite. I guess that one thing we're trying to work around is the fact that systems that are the target of a notification message, and that might pass it on to where it loops back around, can't be relied on to pass whole headers, and so things like Received counting or looking at (e.g.) "Delivered-To" can't be counted on as those fields might get stripped. As might the original "Auto-Submitted" field, so this technique either relies on this field being preserved, or on one of the downstream notifiers or forwarders adding one of their own. That all strikes me as kind of shakey in addition to being a mis-use of this field. So I feel that it's important to make a note about loop prevention; that it's hard to do when it's a possibility that most header fields will get stripped; but that that doesn't make using "Auto-Submitted" any more palatable. I wish I had text to propose, other than just a strong note that somehow detecting loops should be a priority of the implementor. I also think that the "MUST NOT" under discussion is almost certain to be violated, so I would vote against that. mm 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 m6LIkJrr061739 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:46:19 -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 m6LIkJsl061738; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:46:19 -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 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 m6LIkA4e061714 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:46:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from jhutz@cmu.edu) Received: from SIRIUS.FAC.CS.CMU.EDU (SIRIUS.FAC.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.209.170]) (authenticated bits=0) by jackfruit.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m6LIjuuB013172 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:45:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:45:56 -0400 From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> To: Michael Haardt <michael.haardt@freenet.ag>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org cc: jhutz@cmu.edu Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt Message-ID: <BAF6F7823C0F38AB43817EF8@sirius.fac.cs.cmu.edu> In-Reply-To: <E1KJpWH-0004fd-MK@nostromo.freenet-ag.de> References: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.com> <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.com> <E1KJpWH-0004fd-MK@nostromo.freenet-ag.de> 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 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 Friday, July 18, 2008 02:57:09 PM +0200 Michael Haardt <michael.haardt@freenet.ag> wrote: > >> 1. Using Auto-Submitted to avoid loops -- and, therefore, the risk of >> loops if we send notifications for auto-submitted messages -- is >> sufficiently important that the current "MUST NOT" text should stay. > > I vote for this. It's simple and effective, exactly how loop avoidance > should be. Shutting down the mail system would also be simple and effective. 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 m6ICvDUk060253 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:57:13 -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 m6ICvD2N060252; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:57:13 -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 mout4.freenet.de (mout4.freenet.de [IPv6:2001:748:100:40::2:6]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6ICvBsd060239 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:57:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from michael.haardt@freenet.ag) Received: from [195.4.92.19] (helo=9.mx.freenet.de) by mout4.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID exim) (port 25) (Exim 4.69 #19) id 1KJpWI-0005O7-6R for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:57:10 +0200 Received: from nostromo.freenet-ag.de ([194.97.7.6]:39722) by 9.mx.freenet.de with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (port 25) (Exim 4.69 #12) id 1KJpWI-0002gi-5j for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:57:10 +0200 Received: from michael by nostromo.freenet-ag.de with local (ID michael) (Exim 4.69 #65) id 1KJpWH-0004fd-MK for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:57:09 +0200 Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:57:09 +0200 To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt References: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.com> <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.com> User-Agent: Heirloom mailx 12.1 6/15/06 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <E1KJpWH-0004fd-MK@nostromo.freenet-ag.de> From: Michael Haardt <michael.haardt@freenet.ag> 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> > 1. Using Auto-Submitted to avoid loops -- and, therefore, the risk of > loops if we send notifications for auto-submitted messages -- is > sufficiently important that the current "MUST NOT" text should stay. I vote for this. It's simple and effective, exactly how loop avoidance should be. Michael 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 m6HKL7in090115 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:21:07 -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 m6HKL7BQ090114; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:21:07 -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 py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.178]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6HKL6Nq090107 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:21:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com) Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id u52so56531pyb.11 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:21:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=d+vASluYS7TZqBSHQ5DFfYtU6Syzi4Jd1dUjYM3L82E=; b=FfZVOKErL//hzYfxg4b/W7w6UBYP7HwCC0AuxkeH3qeiRbP0ZX16qk8Wqm6hV5GQtb TBcW7k/GCNuHZW9+EduF/UAUfeqCqFmCJzQNGrWk2GSibyv2gG8e89pJsVcsRc6Y4470 /tUtbk11xhurL93PD3UtcN+LNyXVVOglhzKYU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=B0AlklAwOEfB9Bg7FBakCHCgKOKDrhz0/zpQpZjLloMY6uVWUfxXMtssW0xt4YnWNO wERUsJsGTYnKg1+nL6LDXXXX4Lw+Hbp+4kspP7pp4riY37oN/EbzNDu0Z7m+0Eq9QASe pbRYtG/qRADbJDckomd+/KBd4ZpHXi2foI/+4= Received: by 10.114.177.1 with SMTP id z1mr2161310wae.37.1216326065380; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:21:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.115.23.18 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:21:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <f470f68e0807171321r2ed7f906oe77c8cecf74273e2@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:21:00 +0100 From: "Robert Burrell Donkin" <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> To: "Aaron Stone" <aaron@serendipity.cx> Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt Cc: SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> In-Reply-To: <F94ED2C1-BFFB-44E9-B9EB-8359C2986BAC@serendipity.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <487209A6.4040309@isode.com> <f470f68e0807071227w2351ebf4g7e35dc4db81d4168@mail.gmail.com> <BE5281A49672F0D083DC8BB5@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu> <f470f68e0807071340w2b97941eh982273fe4534da26@mail.gmail.com> <AD873306-36DF-4953-9B71-824A3A702E17@serendipity.cx> <f470f68e0807071418k52a2aa1dv9c7c7199fd201812@mail.gmail.com> <E724FA1D-5B52-4C26-A218-15045CD49DE3@serendipity.cx> <f470f68e0807071529v70cd25b1q9069266c10e01ba2@mail.gmail.com> <F94ED2C1-BFFB-44E9-B9EB-8359C2986BAC@serendipity.cx> 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, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> wrote: > On Jul 7, 2008, at 3:29 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> wrote: >>> >>> Wait, top-post here says, "is there a point to the discussion going on >>> here?" >> >> i'm confused: which top post? this top post you're posting now? (or >> another that gmail has helpfully hidden) > > My top post, i.e. this sub-thread. thanks >>> Are you suggesting that we not bring managesieve to publication as an >>> RFC? >> >> if the aim is codification of existing practice then since i am not an >> existing practioner of this particular protocol, how can i object? >> >> it's been made quite clear to me that this is the priority of this RFC >> is not quality but compatibility > > Ok, cool. in future, i'll save my criticisms for other forums and i'll try to refrain from replying to flames i did turn up some specific points when i looked through the draft. FWIW here are some of them > 1.2 Syntax ... > The BYE response may be used if the server wishes to close the > connection. A server may wish to do this because the client was idle > for too long or there were too many failed authentication attempts. > This response can be issued at any time and should be immediately > followed by a server hang-up of the connection. If a server has a > inactivity timeout resulting in client autologout it MUST be no less > than 30 minutes. 1. too verbose: the justification in secnd paragraph is not needed; 2. unclear: using 'MAY' makes the intent of the protocol unclear. changing this to SHOULD would allow the client to infer abnormal shutdown from it's absence. 3. the autologout timeout requirement is evil. this requirement gains little from a client perspective (client needs to be able to cope robustly with connection failures) at a high cost from the server perspective (holding connections on the server limits scalability and complicates implementation). client agent identity and capabilities ---------------------------------------------------------- the draft lacks a mechanism which allows a client libraries to identify themselves or their capabilities. if it were possible for servers to identify clients then workarounds could be applied just for particular clients with known bugs. as this draft stands, servers are forced to apply workarounds for all clients. this (in turn) means the de juru standard tends to drift from the de facto one. BAD input ---------------- the draft does not indicate the right way to deal with input that cannot be parsed. perhaps server SHOULD deal with malformed input by issuing a BYE followed by an appropriate response code. "newlines" ---------------- the specification mentions "newlines" in a couple of places. it would be clearer to specify what's meant by this eg CRLF (if that's what's meant). >>> Are you suggested what we can do for a next-generation sieve management >>> system? >> >> Alexey Melnikov's comments about a next generation protocol >> compatiable with IMAP make a lot more sense to me. it seems to me that >> an independent protocol would be much more widely useful if it did not >> adopt the IMAP style. > > Yeah, I think so, too. Unless we exposed the protocol through IMAP somehow, > which I'm still a fan of doing, if possible. +1 i'm interested in this > Thanks for clearing up the angle you're approaching this from. i plan to use RESTful HTTP. i believe that approach has many advantages over this draft and may encourage easier interoperability amongst the general development community. - robert 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 m6HDvZvu054318 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:57:35 -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 m6HDvZwt054317; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:57:35 -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 daboo.name (daboo.name [151.201.22.177]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6HDvXAg054309 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:57:34 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from cyrus@daboo.name) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDC63A587B8 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:57:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at daboo.name Received: from daboo.name ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (chewy.mulberrymail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xc3ja5cglj3b for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:57:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from caldav.corp.apple.com (unknown [17.101.32.44]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2580BA587B1 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:57:29 -0400 From: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name> To: SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Agenda for Dublin Message-ID: <E04AB7F07B4424F7DA24CA3C@caldav.corp.apple.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.1.0a1 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline 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, Alexey and I have put together the following agenda for the Dublin meeting. Are goal with this is to give time to discussing the set of documents that, according to our new proposed milestones, will be due for action over the period of time leading up to the next IETF meeting after Dublin. We would appreciate document authors preparing slides or bullet points on the key issues and status of their documents for inclusion in the slides at the meeting, thanks. In particular, would someone like to tackle the EAI Issues topic? Agenda Document status review (10 mins) WG Status review (10 mins) Notify Mailto (draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-06.txt) (10 mins) Mime Loops (draft-ietf-sieve-mime-loop-05.txt) (10 mins) iHave (draft-freed-sieve-ihave-02.txt) (10 mins) Notary (draft-freed-sieve-notary-01.txt) (10 mins) SIEVE in XML (draft-freed-sieve-in-xml-01.txt) (10 mins) ManageSIEVE (draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt) (10 mins) EAI Issues (15 mins) Benefits of SIEVE (15 mins) Test Scripts (10 mins) ================================================================= Total: 120 mins -- Cyrus Daboo 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 m6G8AwDo010427 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:10:58 -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 m6G8Awlj010426; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:10:58 -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 m6G8Ash6010411 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:10:56 -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 2EB714AC80 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:10:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 195.30.37.40 (HELO lochnagar.oryx.com) by kalyani.oryx.com with esmtp id 1216195843-41315-26; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:10:43 +0200 Message-Id: <dzuCZidU500GXjUAhLxImQ.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:08:36 +0200 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt References: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.com> <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.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> Barry Leiba writes: > 1. Using Auto-Submitted to avoid loops -- and, therefore, the risk of > loops if we send notifications for auto-submitted messages -- is > sufficiently important that the current "MUST NOT" text should stay. +1 > 2. The use cases for notifications on auto-submitted messages are > sufficiently important that the text should be changed. [Please > suggest new text, in this case.] > > 3. "SHOULD NOT" is an acceptable compromise. The current "MUST NOT" > should be changed to "SHOULD NOT", with some added text to explain > the danger very clearly. [In this case, you can suggest text, or > I'll craft it.] I could go along with that, assuming suitable wording, but I find it difficult to come up with such wording. IMO there is considerable value in having a really simple rule on Auto-Submitted and loops. 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 m6FFAGkB036042 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:10:16 -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 m6FFAGoR036041; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:10:16 -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 dizzyd.com (dizzyd.com [207.210.219.225]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6FFAEQw036034 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:10:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from stpeter@stpeter.im) Received: from wrk225.corp.jabber.com (dencfw1.jabber.com [207.182.164.5]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by dizzyd.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7284640412; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:07:45 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <487CBDD3.2040604@stpeter.im> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:10:11 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080421 Thunderbird/2.0.0.14 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> CC: Barry Leiba <leiba@watson.ibm.com>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt References: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.com> <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.com> <487CB747.80502@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <487CB747.80502@isode.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms010802000104090205010308" 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> This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms010802000104090205010308 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > Barry Leiba wrote: > >> I'm looking for consensus on one of these: >> >> 1. Using Auto-Submitted to avoid loops -- and, therefore, the risk of >> loops if we send notifications for auto-submitted messages -- is >> sufficiently important that the current "MUST NOT" text should stay. >> >> 2. The use cases for notifications on auto-submitted messages are >> sufficiently important that the text should be changed. [Please >> suggest new text, in this case.] >> >> 3. "SHOULD NOT" is an acceptable compromise. The current "MUST NOT" >> should be changed to "SHOULD NOT", with some added text to explain the >> danger very clearly. [In this case, you can suggest text, or I'll >> craft it.] > > Now that you mention this I prefer SHOULD NOT. So I take it that means: Implementations SHOULD NOT trigger notifications for messages containing "Auto-Submitted:" header fields with any value other than "No". Then I assume we want to add a clause after that saying something like "because notifications triggered by such messages can result in mail loops." /psa --------------ms010802000104090205010308 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIYQDCC B3AwggbZoAMCAQICAQowDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQAwgbAxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMQ8wDQYDVQQI EwZJc3JhZWwxDjAMBgNVBAcTBUVpbGF0MRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMRowGAYD VQQLExFDQSBBdXRob3JpdHkgRGVwLjEpMCcGA1UEAxMgRnJlZSBTU0wgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlv biBBdXRob3JpdHkxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEmFkbWluQHN0YXJ0Y29tLm9yZzAeFw0wNTA0 MDUxNDUyMTNaFw0xMDA0MDQxNDUyMTNaMIGvMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEPMA0GA1UECBMGSXNy YWVsMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSMwIQYDVQQLExpTZWN1cmUgQ2VydGlmaWNh dGUgU2lnbmluZzEvMC0GA1UEAxMmU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3MgMyBQcmltYXJ5IEVtYWlsIEZy ZWUgQ0ExITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEmFkbWluQHN0YXJ0Y29tLm9yZzCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcN AQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAPEaOcSx5ZNexwo1zJNcX48UV0UtkNtWX3qa9ZaX2VZilgIz eIrObloQV0Ma2rdgqosW9xMb5u3lBVIumt7fEwgMqqtDa3F2Qudelv93P9z2nbmn7X4GnCKA IQcW97KOSgQQHaVPHq03xGFbszx+LOKrBi/xv3bcGxtYrH+10M1nHbCRo8U2+zcJQowxoI+O U5nhko9vU25Jp8ZQ2fROH6C2TSjZuanzMTyvc5+dJiN2Hm2MhAMrqO7pUGhDKuUvnmKpAcwj eYQHU51mvlB4IId+4bTEwVoG4AMJ8RXB47VdJevN0yqeJSACyoRft4w4OpqFysR1HTT6aE6u xLg9ZC0CAwEAAaOCBBMwggQPMA8GA1UdEwEB/wQFMAMBAf8wCwYDVR0PBAQDAgHmMB0GA1Ud DgQWBBQErNskd1NGRpZfFwFcfUJHvUgZCDCB3QYDVR0jBIHVMIHSgBQcicOWzL3+MtUNjIEx tpidjShkjaGBtqSBszCBsDELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxDzANBgNVBAgTBklzcmFlbDEOMAwGA1UE BxMFRWlsYXQxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xGjAYBgNVBAsTEUNBIEF1dGhvcml0 eSBEZXAuMSkwJwYDVQQDEyBGcmVlIFNTTCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9uIEF1dGhvcml0eTEhMB8G CSqGSIb3DQEJARYSYWRtaW5Ac3RhcnRjb20ub3JnggEAMB0GA1UdEQQWMBSBEmFkbWluQHN0 YXJ0Y29tLm9yZzAdBgNVHRIEFjAUgRJhZG1pbkBzdGFydGNvbS5vcmcwYgYDVR0fBFswWTAp oCegJYYjaHR0cDovL2NlcnQuc3RhcnRjb20ub3JnL2NhLWNybC5jcmwwLKAqoCiGJmh0dHA6 Ly9jcmwuc3RhcnRjb20ub3JnL2NybC9jYS1jcmwuY3JsMIIBSgYDVR0gBIIBQTCCAT0wggE5 BgsrBgEEAYG1NwEBATCCASgwLwYIKwYBBQUHAgEWI2h0dHA6Ly9jZXJ0LnN0YXJ0Y29tLm9y Zy9wb2xpY3kucGRmMDUGCCsGAQUFBwIBFilodHRwOi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcvaW50 ZXJtZWRpYXRlLnBkZjCBvQYIKwYBBQUHAgIwgbAwFBYNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjADAgEBGoGX TGltaXRlZCBMaWFiaWxpdHksIHJlYWQgdGhlIHNlY3Rpb24gKkxlZ2FsIExpbWl0YXRpb25z KiBvZiB0aGUgU3RhcnRDb20gQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgUG9saWN5IGF2YWls YWJsZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcvcG9saWN5LnBkZjARBglghkgBhvhC AQEEBAMCAAcwUAYJYIZIAYb4QgENBEMWQVN0YXJ0Q29tIENsYXNzIDMgUHJpbWFyeSBJbnRl cm1lZGlhdGUgRnJlZSBTU0wgRW1haWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGVzMDIGCWCGSAGG+EIBBAQlFiNo dHRwOi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcvY2EtY3JsLmNybDAzBglghkgBhvhCAQMEJhYkaHR0 cDovL2NlcnQuc3RhcnRjb20ub3JnL2NydC1jcmwuY3JsMDIGCWCGSAGG+EIBCAQlFiNodHRw Oi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcvcG9saWN5LnBkZjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQBc1g6H yT3ZrGb0Kq+kkqetnSXtcwffHEr6Tia2XqCqPLLzdZ8VTxVjeq/Kpg2u+8cGASIl1U45XmWa v4Vez+jSSnChRHwidmbwjCtNBFxr4C/Nkgs8wk2zNQbh+zlDKNophJT7+DVOhnIMJzdNkQW0 4STurMCFwLoyx5k1rDHQYTCCCGIwggdKoAMCAQICAwF4qjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCBrzEL MAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxDzANBgNVBAgTBklzcmFlbDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjEj MCEGA1UECxMaU2VjdXJlIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxLzAtBgNVBAMTJlN0YXJ0Q29t IENsYXNzIDMgUHJpbWFyeSBFbWFpbCBGcmVlIENBMSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJhZG1pbkBz dGFydGNvbS5vcmcwHhcNMDcwODIyMjExMzI3WhcNMDgwODIxMjExMzI3WjCBujELMAkGA1UE BhMCVVMxETAPBgNVBAgTCENvbG9yYWRvMQ8wDQYDVQQHEwZEZW52ZXIxGjAYBgNVBAoTEVBl dGVyIFNhaW50LUFuZHJlMSwwKgYDVQQLEyNTdGFydENvbSBUcnVzdGVkIENlcnRpZmljYXRl IE1lbWJlcjEaMBgGA1UEAxMRUGV0ZXIgU2FpbnQtQW5kcmUxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEnN0 cGV0ZXJAc3RwZXRlci5pbTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBALC1dkqD gghuvUCkEloRDX50TTJ6Szj1BqtMpYq+An66BwkWfP07uay+jHori77776wk1/Ajk1nTSHX+ JWo+JWwVXYWBX+Zd780bB0FGShYlHGwMhd/pxX9sT4KW3D+r8sIHVbTGdudSweuNdBhqr1iE cjze75hpywMkk1OQhTkseQxI5owa9M31JOdNEX0Ja6esyhwwtqqTNC86OujXwa2wew8GTRJE 9p2I0B1VCsKuJaPatbIcf9OFiTSODb5vyoq3+lrElh6V6BXKxEfQ4D2HCSY+5UmlKdnltzvN bqxyaTYQi1YGsFzew7ST3R8P5jrCq2cvRjGrTKVojZXgPZ0CAwEAAaOCBHgwggR0MAwGA1Ud EwQFMAMCAQAwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgSwMB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsGAQUFBwMCBggrBgEFBQcDBDAd BgNVHQ4EFgQUl7CU2dS/alOwLIHV/Oc2RkGDYugwgd0GA1UdIwSB1TCB0oAUBKzbJHdTRkaW XxcBXH1CR71IGQihgbakgbMwgbAxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMQ8wDQYDVQQIEwZJc3JhZWwxDjAM BgNVBAcTBUVpbGF0MRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMRowGAYDVQQLExFDQSBBdXRo b3JpdHkgRGVwLjEpMCcGA1UEAxMgRnJlZSBTU0wgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkx ITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEmFkbWluQHN0YXJ0Y29tLm9yZ4IBCjCCAUAGA1UdIASCATcwggEz MIIBLwYLKwYBBAGBtTcBAQQwggEeMDUGCCsGAQUFBwIBFilodHRwOi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNv bS5vcmcvaW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlLnBkZjAvBggrBgEFBQcCARYjaHR0cDovL2NlcnQuc3RhcnRj b20ub3JnL3BvbGljeS5wZGYwgbMGCCsGAQUFBwICMIGmMBQWDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4wAwIB ARqBjUxpbWl0ZWQgTGlhYmlsaXR5LCByZWFkIHRoZSBzZWN0aW9uICpMZWdhbCBMaW1pdGF0 aW9ucyogb2YgdGhlIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gUG9saWN5IGF2YWlsYWJsZSBh dCBodHRwOi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcvcG9saWN5LnBkZjBkBgNVHR8EXTBbMCygKqAo hiZodHRwOi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcvY3J0dTMtY3JsLmNybDAroCmgJ4YlaHR0cDov L2NybC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcvY3J0dTMtY3JsLmNybDCBhAYIKwYBBQUHAQEEeDB2MDcGCCsG AQUFBzABhitodHRwOi8vb2NzcC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcvc3ViL2NsYXNzMy91c2VyL2NhMDsG CCsGAQUFBzAChi9odHRwOi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcvc3ViLmNsYXNzMy51c2VyLmNh LmNydDARBglghkgBhvhCAQEEBAMCBaAwMQYJYIZIAYb4QgENBCQWIlN0YXJ0Q29tIFRydXN0 ZWQgRW1haWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUwMgYJYIZIAYb4QgEEBCUWI2h0dHA6Ly9jZXJ0LnN0YXJ0 Y29tLm9yZy9jYS1jcmwuY3JsMDUGCWCGSAGG+EIBAwQoFiZodHRwOi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNv bS5vcmcvY3J0dTMtY3JsLmNybDAyBglghkgBhvhCAQgEJRYjaHR0cDovL2NlcnQuc3RhcnRj b20ub3JnL3BvbGljeS5wZGYwIwYDVR0SBBwwGoYYaHR0cDovL2NlcnQuc3RhcnRjb20ub3Jn MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQCdG1L0T4OT1x4X/cKsuHxgijRaZGGiVECcn5+1X7E3H54/ yDkUqWAp6MZ3hZm36pzTYYnl+5M6vldLcqFCVpD7MgH6Kmu+r6pXAjU33k1RIHnkBvQ6KGlR p0RjfaZW/2MkG07vF2QTLbx6KIhi0pa9Bg9wlqyw+C2g6FYnfmrdJLgGrxUXek8DSZNjZ/AA 75OoutrWkBtdaL2TbFiawdbGuJbSoQLHqLrNhT8f74Oec7ReOmuUTEL8hsFU0sbY/n2e9Wna 1Vzze3nZPbyPiC5F88p88gVLB9mKkOzleYefYiQw8LABz5x1MI+w0bNKNPLviJ/KnHGFEfVL z1oMHyC3MIIIYjCCB0qgAwIBAgIDAXiqMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIGvMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJ TDEPMA0GA1UECBMGSXNyYWVsMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSMwIQYDVQQLExpT ZWN1cmUgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzEvMC0GA1UEAxMmU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3MgMyBQ cmltYXJ5IEVtYWlsIEZyZWUgQ0ExITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEmFkbWluQHN0YXJ0Y29tLm9y ZzAeFw0wNzA4MjIyMTEzMjdaFw0wODA4MjEyMTEzMjdaMIG6MQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzERMA8G A1UECBMIQ29sb3JhZG8xDzANBgNVBAcTBkRlbnZlcjEaMBgGA1UEChMRUGV0ZXIgU2FpbnQt QW5kcmUxLDAqBgNVBAsTI1N0YXJ0Q29tIFRydXN0ZWQgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgTWVtYmVyMRow GAYDVQQDExFQZXRlciBTYWludC1BbmRyZTEhMB8GCSqGSIb3DQEJARYSc3RwZXRlckBzdHBl dGVyLmltMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAsLV2SoOCCG69QKQSWhEN fnRNMnpLOPUGq0ylir4CfroHCRZ8/Tu5rL6MeiuLvvvvrCTX8COTWdNIdf4laj4lbBVdhYFf 5l3vzRsHQUZKFiUcbAyF3+nFf2xPgpbcP6vywgdVtMZ251LB6410GGqvWIRyPN7vmGnLAyST U5CFOSx5DEjmjBr0zfUk500RfQlrp6zKHDC2qpM0Lzo66NfBrbB7DwZNEkT2nYjQHVUKwq4l o9q1shx/04WJNI4Nvm/Kirf6WsSWHpXoFcrER9DgPYcJJj7lSaUp2eW3O81urHJpNhCLVgaw XN7DtJPdHw/mOsKrZy9GMatMpWiNleA9nQIDAQABo4IEeDCCBHQwDAYDVR0TBAUwAwIBADAL BgNVHQ8EBAMCBLAwHQYDVR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCCsGAQUFBwMEMB0GA1UdDgQWBBSX sJTZ1L9qU7AsgdX85zZGQYNi6DCB3QYDVR0jBIHVMIHSgBQErNskd1NGRpZfFwFcfUJHvUgZ CKGBtqSBszCBsDELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxDzANBgNVBAgTBklzcmFlbDEOMAwGA1UEBxMFRWls YXQxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xGjAYBgNVBAsTEUNBIEF1dGhvcml0eSBEZXAu MSkwJwYDVQQDEyBGcmVlIFNTTCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9uIEF1dGhvcml0eTEhMB8GCSqGSIb3 DQEJARYSYWRtaW5Ac3RhcnRjb20ub3JnggEKMIIBQAYDVR0gBIIBNzCCATMwggEvBgsrBgEE AYG1NwEBBDCCAR4wNQYIKwYBBQUHAgEWKWh0dHA6Ly9jZXJ0LnN0YXJ0Y29tLm9yZy9pbnRl cm1lZGlhdGUucGRmMC8GCCsGAQUFBwIBFiNodHRwOi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcvcG9s aWN5LnBkZjCBswYIKwYBBQUHAgIwgaYwFBYNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjADAgEBGoGNTGltaXRl ZCBMaWFiaWxpdHksIHJlYWQgdGhlIHNlY3Rpb24gKkxlZ2FsIExpbWl0YXRpb25zKiBvZiB0 aGUgU3RhcnRDb20gQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBQb2xpY3kgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9j ZXJ0LnN0YXJ0Y29tLm9yZy9wb2xpY3kucGRmMGQGA1UdHwRdMFswLKAqoCiGJmh0dHA6Ly9j ZXJ0LnN0YXJ0Y29tLm9yZy9jcnR1My1jcmwuY3JsMCugKaAnhiVodHRwOi8vY3JsLnN0YXJ0 Y29tLm9yZy9jcnR1My1jcmwuY3JsMIGEBggrBgEFBQcBAQR4MHYwNwYIKwYBBQUHMAGGK2h0 dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0Y29tLm9yZy9zdWIvY2xhc3MzL3VzZXIvY2EwOwYIKwYBBQUHMAKG L2h0dHA6Ly9jZXJ0LnN0YXJ0Y29tLm9yZy9zdWIuY2xhc3MzLnVzZXIuY2EuY3J0MBEGCWCG SAGG+EIBAQQEAwIFoDAxBglghkgBhvhCAQ0EJBYiU3RhcnRDb20gVHJ1c3RlZCBFbWFpbCBD ZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZTAyBglghkgBhvhCAQQEJRYjaHR0cDovL2NlcnQuc3RhcnRjb20ub3JnL2Nh LWNybC5jcmwwNQYJYIZIAYb4QgEDBCgWJmh0dHA6Ly9jZXJ0LnN0YXJ0Y29tLm9yZy9jcnR1 My1jcmwuY3JsMDIGCWCGSAGG+EIBCAQlFiNodHRwOi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcvcG9s aWN5LnBkZjAjBgNVHRIEHDAahhhodHRwOi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcwDQYJKoZIhvcN AQEFBQADggEBAJ0bUvRPg5PXHhf9wqy4fGCKNFpkYaJUQJyfn7VfsTcfnj/IORSpYCnoxneF mbfqnNNhieX7kzq+V0tyoUJWkPsyAfoqa76vqlcCNTfeTVEgeeQG9DooaVGnRGN9plb/YyQb Tu8XZBMtvHooiGLSlr0GD3CWrLD4LaDoVid+at0kuAavFRd6TwNJk2Nn8ADvk6i62taQG11o vZNsWJrB1sa4ltKhAseous2FPx/vg55ztF46a5RMQvyGwVTSxtj+fZ71adrVXPN7edk9vI+I LkXzynzyBUsH2YqQ7OV5h59iJDDwsAHPnHUwj7DRs0o08u+In8qccYUR9UvPWgwfILcxggQs MIIEKAIBATCBtzCBrzELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxDzANBgNVBAgTBklzcmFlbDEWMBQGA1UEChMN U3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjEjMCEGA1UECxMaU2VjdXJlIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxLzAt BgNVBAMTJlN0YXJ0Q29tIENsYXNzIDMgUHJpbWFyeSBFbWFpbCBGcmVlIENBMSEwHwYJKoZI hvcNAQkBFhJhZG1pbkBzdGFydGNvbS5vcmcCAwF4qjAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIICSTAYBgkqhkiG 9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0wODA3MTUxNTEwMTFaMCMGCSqG SIb3DQEJBDEWBBQU1kFUzP+OgHTBWYi2v6j7ud7jPDBSBgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xRTBDMAoGCCqG SIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG 9w0DAgIBKDCByAYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYG6MIG3MIGvMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEPMA0GA1UECBMG SXNyYWVsMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSMwIQYDVQQLExpTZWN1cmUgQ2VydGlm aWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzEvMC0GA1UEAxMmU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3MgMyBQcmltYXJ5IEVtYWls IEZyZWUgQ0ExITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEmFkbWluQHN0YXJ0Y29tLm9yZwIDAXiqMIHKBgsq hkiG9w0BCRACCzGBuqCBtzCBrzELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxDzANBgNVBAgTBklzcmFlbDEWMBQG A1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjEjMCEGA1UECxMaU2VjdXJlIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25p bmcxLzAtBgNVBAMTJlN0YXJ0Q29tIENsYXNzIDMgUHJpbWFyeSBFbWFpbCBGcmVlIENBMSEw HwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJhZG1pbkBzdGFydGNvbS5vcmcCAwF4qjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASC AQCtFpzNG1/LLBRhn9sawbpH+4hbeda1wCZlavnpl5gl3Y+cNd895r6PB8AgZAptXFbtFkaJ BydA1PBmGPnzTY+GQe/1doWgQx37M5xu+eMdxZ2lNM7M4xnBIW+b6+4tEgwW0W7Ocn+pxk3N rCeDNtaNHq2K/S8XrEMLsL4eeHyikO90zf8amRobtGPx8JdYxief5YWM2Lfz5YkK+8PDgb1v VoU6vYMouEbZt5HohZl07D99Hbww6ISBRSr0pF6/2RCOexicaqs/mWEy/QzM+Mj9TK619OlH Zk9E5rclVtl7KFe03aVPND3TmFCx/U5xeLvYC1Q+vKq13yS3LwPbj6BJAAAAAAAA --------------ms010802000104090205010308-- 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 m6FEo6El034516 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:50:06 -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 m6FEo6ox034515; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:50:06 -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 rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6FEo54b034509 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:50:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.2.143] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SHy5HABI80ea@rufus.isode.com>; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:50:04 +0100 Message-ID: <487CB8F4.3030103@isode.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:49:24 +0100 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: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-mime-loop-05.txt References: <20080714211502.0F63928C31C@core3.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20080714211502.0F63928C31C@core3.amsl.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> Speaking as a WG participant: The latest version looks good to me. A couple of new issues: 1). >Usage: foreverypart [":name" string] block The document is silent on whether each name string should be unique or not. What should happen if 2 nested foreverypart loops use the same name: the inner loop's name hides the outer name or is this a runtime error? 2). I think the MIME Loops document should discuss implications on digital signatures. This issue came up during IESG review of several documents recently. 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 m6FEgv00033646 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:42:57 -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 m6FEgv9f033645; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:42:57 -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 m6FEgtwZ033636 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:42:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.2.143] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SHy3bwBI8xhQ@rufus.isode.com>; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:42:55 +0100 Message-ID: <487CB747.80502@isode.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:42:15 +0100 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: Barry Leiba <leiba@watson.ibm.com> CC: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt References: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.com> <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.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> Barry Leiba wrote: > I'm looking for consensus on one of these: > > 1. Using Auto-Submitted to avoid loops -- and, therefore, the risk of > loops if we send notifications for auto-submitted messages -- is > sufficiently important that the current "MUST NOT" text should stay. > > 2. The use cases for notifications on auto-submitted messages are > sufficiently important that the text should be changed. [Please > suggest new text, in this case.] > > 3. "SHOULD NOT" is an acceptable compromise. The current "MUST NOT" > should be changed to "SHOULD NOT", with some added text to explain the > danger very clearly. [In this case, you can suggest text, or I'll > craft it.] Now that you mention this I prefer SHOULD 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 m6FEITKQ030970 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:18:29 -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 m6FEISXA030969; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:18:28 -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 e5.ny.us.ibm.com (e5.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.145]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6FEIQPJ030960 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:18:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from leiba@watson.ibm.com) Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6FEIOBN030127 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:18:24 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.0) with ESMTP id m6FEHX2E181236 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:17:33 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m6FEHXZE015062 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:17:33 -0400 Received: from poplar (poplar.watson.ibm.com [9.2.24.140]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m6FEHXcv015052 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:17:33 -0400 Received: from Uranus-009002042049.watson.ibm.com ([9.2.42.49]) by poplar.watson.ibm.com (IMF.2005.07.16.1050.haw) with SMTP ID IMFd1216131457.963; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:17:37 -0400 Message-ID: <487CB17C.5030406@watson.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:17:32 -0400 From: Barry Leiba <leiba@watson.ibm.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt References: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.com> <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> 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 said: > Should a notification be generated if an Auto-Submitted header field > exists (apart from "no")? > > Barry commented on this issue: > > I still don't see clear support for changing this, and I still worry > that it's dangerous. There are certainly use cases for it, but since > this is a major way we're suggesting avoidance of notification loops, I > think it's a Very Bad Idea. > > -08 still has the MUST NOT. I'd strongly prefer to leave it that way. > > === > I tend to agree with Barry. I think the last round of discussion > suggested that the WG has no consensus on this issue. So my > recommendation is to leave the current text as is and publish the > document. *If* there is enough support later for allowing notifications > on notifications, the document can be revised(, or a small extension to > it can be published). But for now I think it is more important to > publish the document. Despite my strong opinion on this point, I think it's not sufficient to say that if there's not a call to change it, the current "MUST NOT" text stays. At one point we had some level of consensus for the current text, but there's been enough dissent that we explicitly need new consensus. So, everyone: if you consider yourself an active participant, please send a message to this mailing list within the next, say, week, stating (briefly) your position on this. There's no need for a lot of explanation, because the reasons on both sides are clear. I'm looking for consensus on one of these: 1. Using Auto-Submitted to avoid loops -- and, therefore, the risk of loops if we send notifications for auto-submitted messages -- is sufficiently important that the current "MUST NOT" text should stay. 2. The use cases for notifications on auto-submitted messages are sufficiently important that the text should be changed. [Please suggest new text, in this case.] 3. "SHOULD NOT" is an acceptable compromise. The current "MUST NOT" should be changed to "SHOULD NOT", with some added text to explain the danger very clearly. [In this case, you can suggest text, or I'll craft it.] Let's try to get clear consensus on this. I propose that in the event of no clear consensus, we have to go with (3). Barry 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 m6FDnpEb028455 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:49:51 -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 m6FDnprr028454; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:49:51 -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 dizzyd.com (dizzyd.com [207.210.219.225]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6FDnoCJ028448 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:49:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from stpeter@stpeter.im) Received: from dialup-4.227.196.36.Dial1.Denver1.Level3.net (dialup-4.227.196.36.Dial1.Denver1.Level3.net [4.227.196.36]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by dizzyd.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48B2E40412; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:47:17 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <487CAAF5.5030900@stpeter.im> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:49:41 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080421 Thunderbird/2.0.0.14 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> CC: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt References: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.com> <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms010801050006020809000508" 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> This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms010801050006020809000508 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: > >> 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 Notification Mechanism: mailto >> Author(s) : B. Leiba, M. Haardt >> Filename : draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt >> Pages : 16 >> Date : 2008-07-09 >> >> This document describes a profile of the Sieve extension for >> notifications, to allow notifications to be sent by electronic mail. >> >> > Folks, > I believe Barry addressed all outstanding issues with the document but one: > > Should a notification be generated if an Auto-Submitted header field > exists (apart from "no")? > > Barry commented on this issue: > > I still don't see clear support for changing this, and I still worry > that it's dangerous. There are certainly use cases for it, but since > this is a major way we're suggesting avoidance of notification loops, I > think it's a Very Bad Idea. > > -08 still has the MUST NOT. I'd strongly prefer to leave it that way. > > === > I tend to agree with Barry. I think the last round of discussion > suggested that the WG has no consensus on this issue. So my > recommendation is to leave the current text as is and publish the > document. *If* there is enough support later for allowing notifications > on notifications, the document can be revised(, or a small extension to > it can be published). But for now I think it is more important to > publish the document. +1 /psa --------------ms010801050006020809000508 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIYQDCC B3AwggbZoAMCAQICAQowDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQAwgbAxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMQ8wDQYDVQQI EwZJc3JhZWwxDjAMBgNVBAcTBUVpbGF0MRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMRowGAYD VQQLExFDQSBBdXRob3JpdHkgRGVwLjEpMCcGA1UEAxMgRnJlZSBTU0wgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlv biBBdXRob3JpdHkxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEmFkbWluQHN0YXJ0Y29tLm9yZzAeFw0wNTA0 MDUxNDUyMTNaFw0xMDA0MDQxNDUyMTNaMIGvMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEPMA0GA1UECBMGSXNy YWVsMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSMwIQYDVQQLExpTZWN1cmUgQ2VydGlmaWNh dGUgU2lnbmluZzEvMC0GA1UEAxMmU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3MgMyBQcmltYXJ5IEVtYWlsIEZy ZWUgQ0ExITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEmFkbWluQHN0YXJ0Y29tLm9yZzCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcN AQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAPEaOcSx5ZNexwo1zJNcX48UV0UtkNtWX3qa9ZaX2VZilgIz eIrObloQV0Ma2rdgqosW9xMb5u3lBVIumt7fEwgMqqtDa3F2Qudelv93P9z2nbmn7X4GnCKA IQcW97KOSgQQHaVPHq03xGFbszx+LOKrBi/xv3bcGxtYrH+10M1nHbCRo8U2+zcJQowxoI+O U5nhko9vU25Jp8ZQ2fROH6C2TSjZuanzMTyvc5+dJiN2Hm2MhAMrqO7pUGhDKuUvnmKpAcwj eYQHU51mvlB4IId+4bTEwVoG4AMJ8RXB47VdJevN0yqeJSACyoRft4w4OpqFysR1HTT6aE6u xLg9ZC0CAwEAAaOCBBMwggQPMA8GA1UdEwEB/wQFMAMBAf8wCwYDVR0PBAQDAgHmMB0GA1Ud DgQWBBQErNskd1NGRpZfFwFcfUJHvUgZCDCB3QYDVR0jBIHVMIHSgBQcicOWzL3+MtUNjIEx tpidjShkjaGBtqSBszCBsDELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxDzANBgNVBAgTBklzcmFlbDEOMAwGA1UE BxMFRWlsYXQxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xGjAYBgNVBAsTEUNBIEF1dGhvcml0 eSBEZXAuMSkwJwYDVQQDEyBGcmVlIFNTTCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9uIEF1dGhvcml0eTEhMB8G CSqGSIb3DQEJARYSYWRtaW5Ac3RhcnRjb20ub3JnggEAMB0GA1UdEQQWMBSBEmFkbWluQHN0 YXJ0Y29tLm9yZzAdBgNVHRIEFjAUgRJhZG1pbkBzdGFydGNvbS5vcmcwYgYDVR0fBFswWTAp oCegJYYjaHR0cDovL2NlcnQuc3RhcnRjb20ub3JnL2NhLWNybC5jcmwwLKAqoCiGJmh0dHA6 Ly9jcmwuc3RhcnRjb20ub3JnL2NybC9jYS1jcmwuY3JsMIIBSgYDVR0gBIIBQTCCAT0wggE5 BgsrBgEEAYG1NwEBATCCASgwLwYIKwYBBQUHAgEWI2h0dHA6Ly9jZXJ0LnN0YXJ0Y29tLm9y Zy9wb2xpY3kucGRmMDUGCCsGAQUFBwIBFilodHRwOi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcvaW50 ZXJtZWRpYXRlLnBkZjCBvQYIKwYBBQUHAgIwgbAwFBYNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjADAgEBGoGX TGltaXRlZCBMaWFiaWxpdHksIHJlYWQgdGhlIHNlY3Rpb24gKkxlZ2FsIExpbWl0YXRpb25z KiBvZiB0aGUgU3RhcnRDb20gQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgUG9saWN5IGF2YWls YWJsZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcvcG9saWN5LnBkZjARBglghkgBhvhC AQEEBAMCAAcwUAYJYIZIAYb4QgENBEMWQVN0YXJ0Q29tIENsYXNzIDMgUHJpbWFyeSBJbnRl cm1lZGlhdGUgRnJlZSBTU0wgRW1haWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGVzMDIGCWCGSAGG+EIBBAQlFiNo dHRwOi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcvY2EtY3JsLmNybDAzBglghkgBhvhCAQMEJhYkaHR0 cDovL2NlcnQuc3RhcnRjb20ub3JnL2NydC1jcmwuY3JsMDIGCWCGSAGG+EIBCAQlFiNodHRw Oi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcvcG9saWN5LnBkZjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQBc1g6H yT3ZrGb0Kq+kkqetnSXtcwffHEr6Tia2XqCqPLLzdZ8VTxVjeq/Kpg2u+8cGASIl1U45XmWa v4Vez+jSSnChRHwidmbwjCtNBFxr4C/Nkgs8wk2zNQbh+zlDKNophJT7+DVOhnIMJzdNkQW0 4STurMCFwLoyx5k1rDHQYTCCCGIwggdKoAMCAQICAwF4qjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCBrzEL MAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxDzANBgNVBAgTBklzcmFlbDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjEj MCEGA1UECxMaU2VjdXJlIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxLzAtBgNVBAMTJlN0YXJ0Q29t IENsYXNzIDMgUHJpbWFyeSBFbWFpbCBGcmVlIENBMSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJhZG1pbkBz dGFydGNvbS5vcmcwHhcNMDcwODIyMjExMzI3WhcNMDgwODIxMjExMzI3WjCBujELMAkGA1UE BhMCVVMxETAPBgNVBAgTCENvbG9yYWRvMQ8wDQYDVQQHEwZEZW52ZXIxGjAYBgNVBAoTEVBl dGVyIFNhaW50LUFuZHJlMSwwKgYDVQQLEyNTdGFydENvbSBUcnVzdGVkIENlcnRpZmljYXRl IE1lbWJlcjEaMBgGA1UEAxMRUGV0ZXIgU2FpbnQtQW5kcmUxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEnN0 cGV0ZXJAc3RwZXRlci5pbTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBALC1dkqD gghuvUCkEloRDX50TTJ6Szj1BqtMpYq+An66BwkWfP07uay+jHori77776wk1/Ajk1nTSHX+ JWo+JWwVXYWBX+Zd780bB0FGShYlHGwMhd/pxX9sT4KW3D+r8sIHVbTGdudSweuNdBhqr1iE cjze75hpywMkk1OQhTkseQxI5owa9M31JOdNEX0Ja6esyhwwtqqTNC86OujXwa2wew8GTRJE 9p2I0B1VCsKuJaPatbIcf9OFiTSODb5vyoq3+lrElh6V6BXKxEfQ4D2HCSY+5UmlKdnltzvN bqxyaTYQi1YGsFzew7ST3R8P5jrCq2cvRjGrTKVojZXgPZ0CAwEAAaOCBHgwggR0MAwGA1Ud EwQFMAMCAQAwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgSwMB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsGAQUFBwMCBggrBgEFBQcDBDAd BgNVHQ4EFgQUl7CU2dS/alOwLIHV/Oc2RkGDYugwgd0GA1UdIwSB1TCB0oAUBKzbJHdTRkaW XxcBXH1CR71IGQihgbakgbMwgbAxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMQ8wDQYDVQQIEwZJc3JhZWwxDjAM BgNVBAcTBUVpbGF0MRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMRowGAYDVQQLExFDQSBBdXRo b3JpdHkgRGVwLjEpMCcGA1UEAxMgRnJlZSBTU0wgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkx ITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEmFkbWluQHN0YXJ0Y29tLm9yZ4IBCjCCAUAGA1UdIASCATcwggEz MIIBLwYLKwYBBAGBtTcBAQQwggEeMDUGCCsGAQUFBwIBFilodHRwOi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNv bS5vcmcvaW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlLnBkZjAvBggrBgEFBQcCARYjaHR0cDovL2NlcnQuc3RhcnRj b20ub3JnL3BvbGljeS5wZGYwgbMGCCsGAQUFBwICMIGmMBQWDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4wAwIB ARqBjUxpbWl0ZWQgTGlhYmlsaXR5LCByZWFkIHRoZSBzZWN0aW9uICpMZWdhbCBMaW1pdGF0 aW9ucyogb2YgdGhlIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gUG9saWN5IGF2YWlsYWJsZSBh dCBodHRwOi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcvcG9saWN5LnBkZjBkBgNVHR8EXTBbMCygKqAo hiZodHRwOi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcvY3J0dTMtY3JsLmNybDAroCmgJ4YlaHR0cDov L2NybC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcvY3J0dTMtY3JsLmNybDCBhAYIKwYBBQUHAQEEeDB2MDcGCCsG AQUFBzABhitodHRwOi8vb2NzcC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcvc3ViL2NsYXNzMy91c2VyL2NhMDsG CCsGAQUFBzAChi9odHRwOi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcvc3ViLmNsYXNzMy51c2VyLmNh LmNydDARBglghkgBhvhCAQEEBAMCBaAwMQYJYIZIAYb4QgENBCQWIlN0YXJ0Q29tIFRydXN0 ZWQgRW1haWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUwMgYJYIZIAYb4QgEEBCUWI2h0dHA6Ly9jZXJ0LnN0YXJ0 Y29tLm9yZy9jYS1jcmwuY3JsMDUGCWCGSAGG+EIBAwQoFiZodHRwOi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNv bS5vcmcvY3J0dTMtY3JsLmNybDAyBglghkgBhvhCAQgEJRYjaHR0cDovL2NlcnQuc3RhcnRj b20ub3JnL3BvbGljeS5wZGYwIwYDVR0SBBwwGoYYaHR0cDovL2NlcnQuc3RhcnRjb20ub3Jn MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQCdG1L0T4OT1x4X/cKsuHxgijRaZGGiVECcn5+1X7E3H54/ yDkUqWAp6MZ3hZm36pzTYYnl+5M6vldLcqFCVpD7MgH6Kmu+r6pXAjU33k1RIHnkBvQ6KGlR p0RjfaZW/2MkG07vF2QTLbx6KIhi0pa9Bg9wlqyw+C2g6FYnfmrdJLgGrxUXek8DSZNjZ/AA 75OoutrWkBtdaL2TbFiawdbGuJbSoQLHqLrNhT8f74Oec7ReOmuUTEL8hsFU0sbY/n2e9Wna 1Vzze3nZPbyPiC5F88p88gVLB9mKkOzleYefYiQw8LABz5x1MI+w0bNKNPLviJ/KnHGFEfVL z1oMHyC3MIIIYjCCB0qgAwIBAgIDAXiqMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIGvMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJ TDEPMA0GA1UECBMGSXNyYWVsMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSMwIQYDVQQLExpT ZWN1cmUgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzEvMC0GA1UEAxMmU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3MgMyBQ cmltYXJ5IEVtYWlsIEZyZWUgQ0ExITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEmFkbWluQHN0YXJ0Y29tLm9y ZzAeFw0wNzA4MjIyMTEzMjdaFw0wODA4MjEyMTEzMjdaMIG6MQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzERMA8G A1UECBMIQ29sb3JhZG8xDzANBgNVBAcTBkRlbnZlcjEaMBgGA1UEChMRUGV0ZXIgU2FpbnQt QW5kcmUxLDAqBgNVBAsTI1N0YXJ0Q29tIFRydXN0ZWQgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgTWVtYmVyMRow GAYDVQQDExFQZXRlciBTYWludC1BbmRyZTEhMB8GCSqGSIb3DQEJARYSc3RwZXRlckBzdHBl dGVyLmltMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAsLV2SoOCCG69QKQSWhEN fnRNMnpLOPUGq0ylir4CfroHCRZ8/Tu5rL6MeiuLvvvvrCTX8COTWdNIdf4laj4lbBVdhYFf 5l3vzRsHQUZKFiUcbAyF3+nFf2xPgpbcP6vywgdVtMZ251LB6410GGqvWIRyPN7vmGnLAyST U5CFOSx5DEjmjBr0zfUk500RfQlrp6zKHDC2qpM0Lzo66NfBrbB7DwZNEkT2nYjQHVUKwq4l o9q1shx/04WJNI4Nvm/Kirf6WsSWHpXoFcrER9DgPYcJJj7lSaUp2eW3O81urHJpNhCLVgaw XN7DtJPdHw/mOsKrZy9GMatMpWiNleA9nQIDAQABo4IEeDCCBHQwDAYDVR0TBAUwAwIBADAL BgNVHQ8EBAMCBLAwHQYDVR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCCsGAQUFBwMEMB0GA1UdDgQWBBSX sJTZ1L9qU7AsgdX85zZGQYNi6DCB3QYDVR0jBIHVMIHSgBQErNskd1NGRpZfFwFcfUJHvUgZ CKGBtqSBszCBsDELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxDzANBgNVBAgTBklzcmFlbDEOMAwGA1UEBxMFRWls YXQxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xGjAYBgNVBAsTEUNBIEF1dGhvcml0eSBEZXAu MSkwJwYDVQQDEyBGcmVlIFNTTCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9uIEF1dGhvcml0eTEhMB8GCSqGSIb3 DQEJARYSYWRtaW5Ac3RhcnRjb20ub3JnggEKMIIBQAYDVR0gBIIBNzCCATMwggEvBgsrBgEE AYG1NwEBBDCCAR4wNQYIKwYBBQUHAgEWKWh0dHA6Ly9jZXJ0LnN0YXJ0Y29tLm9yZy9pbnRl cm1lZGlhdGUucGRmMC8GCCsGAQUFBwIBFiNodHRwOi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcvcG9s aWN5LnBkZjCBswYIKwYBBQUHAgIwgaYwFBYNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjADAgEBGoGNTGltaXRl ZCBMaWFiaWxpdHksIHJlYWQgdGhlIHNlY3Rpb24gKkxlZ2FsIExpbWl0YXRpb25zKiBvZiB0 aGUgU3RhcnRDb20gQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBQb2xpY3kgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9j ZXJ0LnN0YXJ0Y29tLm9yZy9wb2xpY3kucGRmMGQGA1UdHwRdMFswLKAqoCiGJmh0dHA6Ly9j ZXJ0LnN0YXJ0Y29tLm9yZy9jcnR1My1jcmwuY3JsMCugKaAnhiVodHRwOi8vY3JsLnN0YXJ0 Y29tLm9yZy9jcnR1My1jcmwuY3JsMIGEBggrBgEFBQcBAQR4MHYwNwYIKwYBBQUHMAGGK2h0 dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0Y29tLm9yZy9zdWIvY2xhc3MzL3VzZXIvY2EwOwYIKwYBBQUHMAKG L2h0dHA6Ly9jZXJ0LnN0YXJ0Y29tLm9yZy9zdWIuY2xhc3MzLnVzZXIuY2EuY3J0MBEGCWCG SAGG+EIBAQQEAwIFoDAxBglghkgBhvhCAQ0EJBYiU3RhcnRDb20gVHJ1c3RlZCBFbWFpbCBD ZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZTAyBglghkgBhvhCAQQEJRYjaHR0cDovL2NlcnQuc3RhcnRjb20ub3JnL2Nh LWNybC5jcmwwNQYJYIZIAYb4QgEDBCgWJmh0dHA6Ly9jZXJ0LnN0YXJ0Y29tLm9yZy9jcnR1 My1jcmwuY3JsMDIGCWCGSAGG+EIBCAQlFiNodHRwOi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcvcG9s aWN5LnBkZjAjBgNVHRIEHDAahhhodHRwOi8vY2VydC5zdGFydGNvbS5vcmcwDQYJKoZIhvcN AQEFBQADggEBAJ0bUvRPg5PXHhf9wqy4fGCKNFpkYaJUQJyfn7VfsTcfnj/IORSpYCnoxneF mbfqnNNhieX7kzq+V0tyoUJWkPsyAfoqa76vqlcCNTfeTVEgeeQG9DooaVGnRGN9plb/YyQb Tu8XZBMtvHooiGLSlr0GD3CWrLD4LaDoVid+at0kuAavFRd6TwNJk2Nn8ADvk6i62taQG11o vZNsWJrB1sa4ltKhAseous2FPx/vg55ztF46a5RMQvyGwVTSxtj+fZ71adrVXPN7edk9vI+I LkXzynzyBUsH2YqQ7OV5h59iJDDwsAHPnHUwj7DRs0o08u+In8qccYUR9UvPWgwfILcxggQs MIIEKAIBATCBtzCBrzELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxDzANBgNVBAgTBklzcmFlbDEWMBQGA1UEChMN U3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjEjMCEGA1UECxMaU2VjdXJlIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxLzAt BgNVBAMTJlN0YXJ0Q29tIENsYXNzIDMgUHJpbWFyeSBFbWFpbCBGcmVlIENBMSEwHwYJKoZI hvcNAQkBFhJhZG1pbkBzdGFydGNvbS5vcmcCAwF4qjAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIICSTAYBgkqhkiG 9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0wODA3MTUxMzQ5NDFaMCMGCSqG SIb3DQEJBDEWBBQPwcJr4pY4xeHK2sWICaNwFwkFjzBSBgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xRTBDMAoGCCqG SIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG 9w0DAgIBKDCByAYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYG6MIG3MIGvMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEPMA0GA1UECBMG SXNyYWVsMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSMwIQYDVQQLExpTZWN1cmUgQ2VydGlm aWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzEvMC0GA1UEAxMmU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3MgMyBQcmltYXJ5IEVtYWls IEZyZWUgQ0ExITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEmFkbWluQHN0YXJ0Y29tLm9yZwIDAXiqMIHKBgsq hkiG9w0BCRACCzGBuqCBtzCBrzELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxDzANBgNVBAgTBklzcmFlbDEWMBQG A1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjEjMCEGA1UECxMaU2VjdXJlIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25p bmcxLzAtBgNVBAMTJlN0YXJ0Q29tIENsYXNzIDMgUHJpbWFyeSBFbWFpbCBGcmVlIENBMSEw HwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJhZG1pbkBzdGFydGNvbS5vcmcCAwF4qjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASC AQCR9PSqUhU97Z0Kc5/Tg6ZDypckkVfceAk8oJmf5xe6VSMpr5SLslmLuWlQW8ZZ3GOayzYb IpmRNih/LMd5ctjO0LGc4zc3LMXQmI3DBAZ4ELhKZI3YJUqDRc/A27kHZkS2G++n+6HRO8eG HkLz6t6X7XSlfAPX+LndE4wc+f1X6W7myol5/cklWCnOzRocDbfwM6q8GTvyv/Jw910o5m3X u+pr/CovHK/4r+BNpS6RQoDGBR7F4lqkZVhs2KgF4E6G8iEaV1p/j3b6h+12BYcKu7J9prCF JGNtpPRqRYTSAW9BNXjP4w448+65ZlseJYsDwK06rBk36dDyadw1EdkRAAAAAAAA --------------ms010801050006020809000508-- 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 m6FC8fJU017762 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 05:08:41 -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 m6FC8fXF017761; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 05:08:41 -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 rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6FC8cZh017753 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 05:08:40 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.2.143] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SHyTRABI82zY@rufus.isode.com>; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:08:37 +0100 Message-ID: <487C931E.9060404@isode.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:07:58 +0100 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: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt References: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.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> Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: >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 Notification Mechanism: mailto > Author(s) : B. Leiba, M. Haardt > Filename : draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt > Pages : 16 > Date : 2008-07-09 > >This document describes a profile of the Sieve extension for >notifications, to allow notifications to be sent by electronic mail. > > Folks, I believe Barry addressed all outstanding issues with the document but one: Should a notification be generated if an Auto-Submitted header field exists (apart from "no")? Barry commented on this issue: I still don't see clear support for changing this, and I still worry that it's dangerous. There are certainly use cases for it, but since this is a major way we're suggesting avoidance of notification loops, I think it's a Very Bad Idea. -08 still has the MUST NOT. I'd strongly prefer to leave it that way. === I tend to agree with Barry. I think the last round of discussion suggested that the WG has no consensus on this issue. So my recommendation is to leave the current text as is and publish the document. *If* there is enough support later for allowing notifications on notifications, the document can be revised(, or a small extension to it can be published). But for now I think it is more important to publish 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 m6ELFVGv051481 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:15:32 -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 m6ELFVQQ051480; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:15:31 -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 [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::20]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6ELFUBl051474 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:15:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from root@core3.amsl.com) Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 0F63928C31C; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:15:01 -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-mime-loop-05.txt Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20080714211502.0F63928C31C@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:15:02 -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 : Sieve Email Filtering: MIME part Tests, Iteration, Extraction, Replacement and Enclosure Author(s) : T. Hansen, C. Daboo Filename : draft-ietf-sieve-mime-loop-05.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2008-07-14 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-05.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-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-07-14140741.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 m6BB0Btj008187 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 11 Jul 2008 04:00:11 -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 m6BB0BYc008186; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 04:00:11 -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 m6BB09v0008179 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 04:00:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.2.186] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SHc9OQBI82jb@rufus.isode.com>; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:00:09 +0100 Message-ID: <48773D36.4010704@isode.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:00:06 +0100 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 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: [Fwd: RFC 5260 on Sieve Email Filtering: Date and Index Extensions] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------080003030500050706040609" 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> --------------080003030500050706040609 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI. --------------080003030500050706040609 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="RFC 5260 on Sieve Email Filtering: Date and Index Extensions" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="RFC 5260 on Sieve Email Filtering: Date and Index Extensions" Return-Path: <ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org> Received: from rufus.isode.com ([62.3.217.251]) by canine.isode.net (Isode M-Box/14.2v2) with LMTP; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:04:07 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by rufus.isode.com (smtp external) via TCP with ESMTP id <SHaVZgBI86An@rufus.isode.com> for <Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com>; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:04:06 +0100 X-SPF-Result: PASS rufus.isode.com: domain of ietf.org designates 64.170.98.32 as permitted sender Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D27323A6A49; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:02:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ietf-announce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-announce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 173FB3A6A12 for <ietf-announce@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:02:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -17.054 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.054 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST=-15] 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 fpCirApWDlLk for <ietf-announce@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:02:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bosco.isi.edu (bosco.isi.edu [128.9.168.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37C5C3A68D8 for <ietf-announce@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:02:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bosco.isi.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 6521B1420EE; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:03:10 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org Subject: RFC 5260 on Sieve Email Filtering: Date and Index Extensions From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20080710230310.6521B1420EE@bosco.isi.edu> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:03:10 -0700 (PDT) Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org X-BeenThere: ietf-announce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "IETF announcment list. No discussions." <ietf-announce.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce>, <mailto:ietf-announce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ietf-announce> List-Post: <mailto:ietf-announce@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:ietf-announce-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce>, <mailto:ietf-announce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 5260 Title: Sieve Email Filtering: Date and Index Extensions Author: N. Freed Status: Standards Track Date: July 2008 Mailbox: ned.freed@mrochek.com Pages: 13 Characters: 25735 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-freed-sieve-date-index-12.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5260.txt This document describes the "date" and "index" extensions to the Sieve email filtering language. The "date" extension gives Sieve the ability to test date and time values in various ways. The "index" extension provides a means to limit header and address tests to specific instances of header fields when header fields are repeated. [STANDARDS TRACK] This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team USC/Information Sciences Institute _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce --------------080003030500050706040609-- 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 m6BAFgBa004554 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 11 Jul 2008 03:15:42 -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 m6BAFgN7004553; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 03:15:42 -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 m6BAFdSw004540 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 03:15:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.2.186] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SHcyyABI85y9@rufus.isode.com>; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:15:38 +0100 Message-ID: <4876850D.30909@isode.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:54:21 +0100 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: "Mark E. Mallett" <mem@mv.mv.com> CC: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <485E6169.1040202@isode.com> <20080707222859.GA37927@osmium.mv.net> In-Reply-To: <20080707222859.GA37927@osmium.mv.net> 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> Mark E. Mallett wrote: >I haven't done any managesieve work (other than read some earlier >documents) but gave this a quick once-over for anything that might jump >out anyway. Nothing really did, other than some stuff calling for picky >comments, so I'll make some :) > >Also, I'm a bit curious how there can be a last call (-like) when >there are editorial questions embedded (that is, the things in '[[...]]'). >But this isn't a real last call, so I suppose that's the answer. > > This was primarily to motivate reviewers to express their opinion :-). >I found some of the punctuation a little odd but I won't really go >into that (much). > >With that.. > > All fixed, thanks! 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 m69MUNYe009037 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:30:23 -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 m69MUNwf009036; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:30:23 -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 mauve.mrochek.com (dsl-66-59-230-40.static.linkline.com [66.59.230.40]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m69MULsE009028 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:30:22 -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 <01MWYGAAU3XS00CH7X@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:30:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01MWVQTF9GK000007A@mauve.mrochek.com>; Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:19:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Subject: Re: avoid double vacation messages In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:05:47 +0200" <4875363B.2000809@aegee.org> To: =?UTF-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= <Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org> Cc: IETF Sieve WG <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Message-id: <01MWYGA9SGMQ00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <4875363B.2000809@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> > Hello, > In my domain there are a lot of email addresses that are just redirects, > and end in mailboxes in all possible external domains (like mails for > user1@aegee.org are redirected to user1@yahoo.com and user2@aegee.org is > redirected to user2@gmail.com). > I was thinking what will happen if a user configures a vacation service > both on the redirecting server and on the server hosting her mailbox. > Actually there is not so much to think - both servers will send a > vacation reply. This will only happen if something is broken or misconfigured - the "is the recipient liested in the header" check should prevent the system hosting the mailbox from sending a vacation response. Of course the user could specifically override this check with a :addresses parameter specifying the address of the redirecting server. But that's then a case of the user in effect saying that they want both repsonses sent. Another potential issue is that redirection could potentially add a resent-to field that would defeat the check. (This addition is optional in our implementation at least.) But if that happens you now have an explicit indicator of redirection you can test to see if you want the vacation message sent. > But my concerns are how to suppress the second vacation, > from the server hosting the mailbox, and indicate in the redirected > message that a vacation response has been already sent for it. It's supposed to happen automatically. See above. 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 m69M5rew006870 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:05:53 -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 m69M5rkg006869; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:05:53 -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 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 m69M5pmB006862 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:05:52 -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 1KGhnL-0002eQ-3D; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:05:51 +0200 X-Mail-Sent-By-AEGEE.org-Account: didopalauzov Received: from [192.168.1.6] ([213.101.239.44]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.aegee.org (8.14.3/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m69M5n5B016079 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 22:05:50 GMT Message-ID: <4875363B.2000809@aegee.org> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:05:47 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= <Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF Sieve WG <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: avoid double vacation messages Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93.3/7679/Wed Jul 9 20:14:32 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, In my domain there are a lot of email addresses that are just redirects, and end in mailboxes in all possible external domains (like mails for user1@aegee.org are redirected to user1@yahoo.com and user2@aegee.org is redirected to user2@gmail.com). I was thinking what will happen if a user configures a vacation service both on the redirecting server and on the server hosting her mailbox. Actually there is not so much to think - both servers will send a vacation reply. But my concerns are how to suppress the second vacation, from the server hosting the mailbox, and indicate in the redirected message that a vacation response has been already sent for it. Something like "Auto-Submitted: no; vacation sent" or "List-Id: <>" ? Better ideas? Thanks in advance for your opinion. СÑÑ Ð·Ð´Ñаве, 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 m69F0GsO068169 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Jul 2008 08:00:16 -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 m69F0G37068168; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 08:00:16 -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 [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::20]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m69F0FwM068162 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 08:00:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from root@core3.amsl.com) Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 24DB63A6959; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 08:00:01 -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-notify-mailto-08.txt Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20080709150002.24DB63A6959@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 08:00:02 -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 : Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto Author(s) : B. Leiba, M. Haardt Filename : draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2008-07-09 This document describes a profile of the Sieve extension for notifications, to allow notifications to be sent by electronic mail. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-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-notify-mailto-08.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-07-09074942.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 m696oCOu030953 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:50:12 -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 m696oCbX030952; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:50:12 -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 an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.243]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m696oAOg030941 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:50:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c35so545304anc.44 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:50:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=9PaNhcmvuS38Zo8hVxf+Aw2k5vCrBRUbV37/vN4Fi1I=; b=PMu8kyU0PQQcUacd1ygGsl1cG9PGSkR32nU3qWLkzcjhgtakCBaNLKI6X8dhPKLR/G vTZ0+1rCCgBSeaKYhDp1pzNyVFhrV4OcxlOkJyAuRUjGJh6Zoo30oAI4JmGG6jwt0o5V T+eeoIsqryuWZ4L5g8pSLTOWSZy6RDMBa1mgI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=beKO9pFwvur6VUh0xeEE2NAKgAshgUVRQ4jbPRLyGK7ZNXCjGJV79YPI7J/AV/o/xm UddWm+UFav2MBV+PCAysGS50w8mym+WUBt2a+HVzKLSqV9yXsW/AijL031QYkqo5wJqT NfYb/gWVZHl84FXqwZslKgFSUhK2KT8B+hqPw= Received: by 10.100.41.9 with SMTP id o9mr4949735ano.84.1215586209708; Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:50:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.255.14 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:50:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <f470f68e0807082350v964aa94t1072ecc93d1afc3f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 07:50:09 +0100 From: "Robert Burrell Donkin" <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> To: "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt Cc: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <jhutz@cmu.edu>, "Stephan Bosch" <stephan@rename-it.nl>, SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> In-Reply-To: <48735998.9090709@isode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <4867CDB6.5030700@isode.com> <4871D210.3010009@rename-it.nl> <f470f68e0807070505i124daf79s6b7209b2cc29c20b@mail.gmail.com> <487209A6.4040309@isode.com> <f470f68e0807071227w2351ebf4g7e35dc4db81d4168@mail.gmail.com> <BE5281A49672F0D083DC8BB5@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu> <f470f68e0807071340w2b97941eh982273fe4534da26@mail.gmail.com> <23E5AAAF2E30219C5C0B4A37@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu> <48735998.9090709@isode.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> On 7/8/08, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote: > Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > >> --On Monday, July 07, 2008 09:40:11 PM +0100 Robert Burrell Donkin >> <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> --On Monday, July 07, 2008 08:27:59 PM +0100 Robert Burrell Donkin >>>> <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>> it seems unfortunate that this means that a separate port is required >>>>> for sieve management. a compatible extension to IMAP would allow sieve >>>>> management using the same URI. >>>> >>>> >>>> That makes the assumption that sieve scripts live only in IMAP servers, >>>> which I don't think we want to do. >>> >>> not at all :-) >>> >>> the function contained in this protocol is really very trivial. i >>> doubt that any implementator using a storage mechanism other than IMAP >>> would bother creating an implementation rather than just reusing their >>> preferred protocol at the application level. for example, HTTP is a >>> well known protocol whose secruity characterics are know well >>> understood. sieve maintainance using RESTful HTTP would be much >>> simpler than creating an implementations of this novel protocol. >> >> Only if you have a web server and a bunch of related infrastructure >> lying around. If you're implementing sieve support in an MTA, such >> that admins or even user can provide sieve scripts to be run as >> incoming mail is being accepted (rather than waiting until it hits the >> mail store), then you may not have the luxury of requiring people who >> want to use the new feature to run web servers on their inbound MX's. > > Sun has implemented Sieve in SMTP server and are in the process of > implementing ManageSieve protocol. > Still a classic mail server, though. Nothing more exotic. Robert 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 m68CCM9n031622 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 8 Jul 2008 05:12:22 -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 m68CCMdq031620; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 05:12:22 -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 rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m68CCKoD031610 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 05:12:21 -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 <SHNZogA054dR@rufus.isode.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:12:19 +0100 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <48735998.9090709@isode.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:12:08 +0100 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: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> CC: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>, Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl>, SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <485E6169.1040202@isode.com> <48669DF3.1020006@rename-it.nl> <4867CDB6.5030700@isode.com> <4871D210.3010009@rename-it.nl> <f470f68e0807070505i124daf79s6b7209b2cc29c20b@mail.gmail.com> <487209A6.4040309@isode.com> <f470f68e0807071227w2351ebf4g7e35dc4db81d4168@mail.gmail.com> <BE5281A49672F0D083DC8BB5@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu> <f470f68e0807071340w2b97941eh982273fe4534da26@mail.gmail.com> <23E5AAAF2E30219C5C0B4A37@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu> In-Reply-To: <23E5AAAF2E30219C5C0B4A37@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu> 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> Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > --On Monday, July 07, 2008 09:40:11 PM +0100 Robert Burrell Donkin > <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> wrote: >> >>> --On Monday, July 07, 2008 08:27:59 PM +0100 Robert Burrell Donkin >>> <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>> it seems unfortunate that this means that a separate port is required >>>> for sieve management. a compatible extension to IMAP would allow sieve >>>> management using the same URI. >>> >>> >>> That makes the assumption that sieve scripts live only in IMAP servers, >>> which I don't think we want to do. >> >> not at all :-) >> >> the function contained in this protocol is really very trivial. i >> doubt that any implementator using a storage mechanism other than IMAP >> would bother creating an implementation rather than just reusing their >> preferred protocol at the application level. for example, HTTP is a >> well known protocol whose secruity characterics are know well >> understood. sieve maintainance using RESTful HTTP would be much >> simpler than creating an implementations of this novel protocol. > > Only if you have a web server and a bunch of related infrastructure > lying around. If you're implementing sieve support in an MTA, such > that admins or even user can provide sieve scripts to be run as > incoming mail is being accepted (rather than waiting until it hits the > mail store), then you may not have the luxury of requiring people who > want to use the new feature to run web servers on their inbound MX's. Sun has implemented Sieve in SMTP server and are in the process of implementing ManageSieve protocol. 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 m68BfjMl028793 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:41:45 -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 m68Bfj67028792; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:41:45 -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 m68Bfhg6028783 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:41:44 -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 <SHNSdQA052TF@rufus.isode.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:41:41 +0100 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <487341E0.1050906@isode.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:30:56 +0100 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: SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <485E6169.1040202@isode.com> <48669DF3.1020006@rename-it.nl> <4867CDB6.5030700@isode.com> <4871D210.3010009@rename-it.nl> In-Reply-To: <4871D210.3010009@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> Stephan Bosch wrote: > Hi Alexey, Hi Stephan, > Alexey Melnikov wrote: > >>> I thought the idea was to simply allow and ignore the '+' for legacy >>> implementations. >> >> ManageSieve was largely documenting Cyrus timsieved and timsieved >> never emitted "+" to clients. >> If you know any server that emits non-synchronizing literals to >> clients, please let me know. But absent any evidence that this would >> break deployed servers, I would prefer to keep consistency with IMAP >> and timsieved. > > Ok, if I encounter any in the near future I will notify you. > >>> Strictly requiring it from clients seems cumbersome and will, to my >>> opinion, >>> likely introduce even more incompatibilities. >> >> As far as I know ManageSieve never allowed clients to send >> synchronizing literals (literals without +). timsieved allows for >> that (because it reuses IMAP parser), but I don't think it ever emits >> IMAP style "+ go ahead" back to clients. So it is not consistent with >> IMAP either. >> >> If people think that support for synchronizing literals in the >> direction from the client to the server is needed, I can add that. >> But I am not convinced that this is a problem either. > > I am not so much interested in the (IMAP) synchronizing semantics of > the '+' character. With version 08 of the managesieve specification > the '+' character was indicated as 'only allowed from clients' in the > comment somewhere in the ABNF. I am worried that some client > implementors have interpreted this as being optional and decided to > drop the '+' altogether. Right. Description in -08 was an error on my part. As far as I am aware the ManageSieve protocol never allowed + to be optional. > Now it is explicitly required from the clients, making such clients > fail (if they indeed exist, let's hope not). If such broken clients exist, I hope that they would be found and fixed. >>> I do like the new extensions you introduced. :) I'll thoroughly read >>> the >>> new document in a few days to update my ManageSieve implementation. >> >> Sounds good to me :-). > > Ok, I did some preliminary implementation of the new commands. > Regarding the NOOP command I have only one (nitpicking) remark. The > managesieve specification explicitly lists which commands are valid > before authentication. However, by introducing extensions this becomes > a little more sketchy. The RENAMESCRIPT command is clearly not useful > before authentication. However, implementors with IMAP experience > might think of allowing NOOP before authentication, because in IMAP > the NOOP command may be issued before authentication. I think it > cannot hurt to make explicit whether these new commands may be issued > before authentication. Good point. I will clarify that. > Other than that, I found a typo in section 1.3 in the TRYLATER > explanation: 'This response code only make sense when returned in a > NO/BYE response.'. You should add an 's' there somewhere. Fixed, thanks. 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 m67MjwfK066495 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:45:58 -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 m67MjwFi066494; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:45:58 -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 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 m67Mjvws066487 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:45:57 -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 5382E8B90; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 16:02:44 -0700 (PDT) Cc: SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Message-Id: <F94ED2C1-BFFB-44E9-B9EB-8359C2986BAC@serendipity.cx> From: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> To: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <f470f68e0807071529v70cd25b1q9069266c10e01ba2@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926) Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:45:54 -0700 References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <4871D210.3010009@rename-it.nl> <f470f68e0807070505i124daf79s6b7209b2cc29c20b@mail.gmail.com> <487209A6.4040309@isode.com> <f470f68e0807071227w2351ebf4g7e35dc4db81d4168@mail.gmail.com> <BE5281A49672F0D083DC8BB5@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu> <f470f68e0807071340w2b97941eh982273fe4534da26@mail.gmail.com> <AD873306-36DF-4953-9B71-824A3A702E17@serendipity.cx> <f470f68e0807071418k52a2aa1dv9c7c7199fd201812@mail.gmail.com> <E724FA1D-5B52-4C26-A218-15045CD49DE3@serendipity.cx> <f470f68e0807071529v70cd25b1q9069266c10e01ba2@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926) 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 Jul 7, 2008, at 3:29 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> > wrote: >> Wait, top-post here says, "is there a point to the discussion going >> on >> here?" > > i'm confused: which top post? this top post you're posting now? (or > another that gmail has helpfully hidden) My top post, i.e. this sub-thread. > >> Are you suggesting that we not bring managesieve to publication as >> an RFC? > > if the aim is codification of existing practice then since i am not an > existing practioner of this particular protocol, how can i object? > > it's been made quite clear to me that this is the priority of this RFC > is not quality but compatibility Ok, cool. > >> Are you suggested what we can do for a next-generation sieve >> management >> system? > > Alexey Melnikov's comments about a next generation protocol > compatiable with IMAP make a lot more sense to me. it seems to me that > an independent protocol would be much more widely useful if it did not > adopt the IMAP style. Yeah, I think so, too. Unless we exposed the protocol through IMAP somehow, which I'm still a fan of doing, if possible. Thanks for clearing up the angle you're approaching this from. 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 m67MT38F065423 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:29:03 -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 m67MT3Km065422; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:29:03 -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 hs-out-0708.google.com (hs-out-0708.google.com [64.233.178.247]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m67MT2GC065413 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:29:03 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com) Received: by hs-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id 55so444565hsc.10 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:29:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=7kRd0wJiWar+3roMwv8AuMcwZGWAlH5Y2Q78td4G+eM=; b=eSvgYFgQ3swcEQrLlYFRTIdt9TztD7Hpq57Y6H+E73G/R1+G5vDl4X7GRnWsPsNBis Yd5GQBEJYXBzRPc7hiyPgnidO3/yCwZZUm5K9OMYMyqoESrZvNuzsBEYCz222oMGa46x bn+UUbZcU1V2o65zQfPvpbNGZAKUo3oszeO8A= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=LiodEETXHUZHWy05RffUpAgLWqfUlf3k72EmY5G/qzV4e9o+PkHlGFpEkxt7YD9sqU VJ5/YYiilSm0E5bC47fPhVBxmEBzW1esqz/pr97kjOfC3jGx0YtfF4uVtPbWq+FYtM5w pYJwX+pk48z9qUYXX1vqMWdcEOIwsvk3q8nJw= Received: by 10.100.227.6 with SMTP id z6mr4154955ang.51.1215469741909; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:29:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.255.14 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:29:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <f470f68e0807071529v70cd25b1q9069266c10e01ba2@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 23:29:01 +0100 From: "Robert Burrell Donkin" <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> To: "Aaron Stone" <aaron@serendipity.cx> Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt Cc: SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> In-Reply-To: <E724FA1D-5B52-4C26-A218-15045CD49DE3@serendipity.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <4871D210.3010009@rename-it.nl> <f470f68e0807070505i124daf79s6b7209b2cc29c20b@mail.gmail.com> <487209A6.4040309@isode.com> <f470f68e0807071227w2351ebf4g7e35dc4db81d4168@mail.gmail.com> <BE5281A49672F0D083DC8BB5@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu> <f470f68e0807071340w2b97941eh982273fe4534da26@mail.gmail.com> <AD873306-36DF-4953-9B71-824A3A702E17@serendipity.cx> <f470f68e0807071418k52a2aa1dv9c7c7199fd201812@mail.gmail.com> <E724FA1D-5B52-4C26-A218-15045CD49DE3@serendipity.cx> 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, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> wrote: > Wait, top-post here says, "is there a point to the discussion going on > here?" i'm confused: which top post? this top post you're posting now? (or another that gmail has helpfully hidden) > Are you suggesting that we not bring managesieve to publication as an RFC? if the aim is codification of existing practice then since i am not an existing practioner of this particular protocol, how can i object? it's been made quite clear to me that this is the priority of this RFC is not quality but compatibility > Are you suggested what we can do for a next-generation sieve management > system? Alexey Melnikov's comments about a next generation protocol compatiable with IMAP make a lot more sense to me. it seems to me that an independent protocol would be much more widely useful if it did not adopt the IMAP style. - robert 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 m67MT1MH065409 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:29:01 -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 m67MT1U8065408; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:29:01 -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 shell.mv.net (osmium.mv.net [199.125.85.152]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id m67MSxYG065400 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:29:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mem@mv.mv.com) Received: (qmail 49090 invoked by uid 101); 7 Jul 2008 18:28:59 -0400 From: "Mark E. Mallett" <mem@mv.mv.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:28:59 -0400 To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt Message-ID: <20080707222859.GA37927@osmium.mv.net> References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <485E6169.1040202@isode.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <485E6169.1040202@isode.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i 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 haven't done any managesieve work (other than read some earlier documents) but gave this a quick once-over for anything that might jump out anyway. Nothing really did, other than some stuff calling for picky comments, so I'll make some :) Also, I'm a bit curious how there can be a last call (-like) when there are editorial questions embedded (that is, the things in '[[...]]'). But this isn't a real last call, so I suppose that's the answer. I found some of the punctuation a little odd but I won't really go into that (much). With that.. ========== 1.3. Response Codes: If this response code is returned in the OK response, it can mean that the user is near its quota or that the user exceeded its quota, but the server supports soft quotas. Two things: Here is one place where I think the punctuation affects the meaning, in that "but the server supports soft quotas" seems to go with both "near quota" and "exceeded quota" whereas it probably really goes with the latter. And, "soft quota" can be taken to mean something specific, whereas I think really what is intended here is that the quota has been exceeded but this is permitted. (and are we calling users "it"?) Simply removing the comma might help, as would an alternative such as: If this response code is returned in the OK response, it can mean that the storage is near its quota, or it can mean that the account exceeded its quota but that that condition is being allowed by the server. ========== 2.1 ... "Note that a failed NO response to the AUTHENTICATE command may contain one of the following response codes:" ... a "failed NO response" strikes me as being a double negative. Probably just "a NO response" or one of the words in parens -- "a NO (failed) response" or "a failed (NO) response". ========== later in 2.1 ... "Another example demostrating use of SASL PLAIN mechanism under TLS." spelling of "demonstrating" ========== later in 2.1 ... "The following example demonstrate use of SASL "initial response"." "demonstrates" Yours, mm 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 m67Ls5oX062899 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:54:05 -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 m67Ls56C062898; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:54:05 -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 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 m67Ls4r9062892 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:54:05 -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 32B068B90; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:10:53 -0700 (PDT) Cc: SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Message-Id: <E724FA1D-5B52-4C26-A218-15045CD49DE3@serendipity.cx> From: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> To: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <f470f68e0807071418k52a2aa1dv9c7c7199fd201812@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926) Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:54:03 -0700 References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <48669DF3.1020006@rename-it.nl> <4867CDB6.5030700@isode.com> <4871D210.3010009@rename-it.nl> <f470f68e0807070505i124daf79s6b7209b2cc29c20b@mail.gmail.com> <487209A6.4040309@isode.com> <f470f68e0807071227w2351ebf4g7e35dc4db81d4168@mail.gmail.com> <BE5281A49672F0D083DC8BB5@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu> <f470f68e0807071340w2b97941eh982273fe4534da26@mail.gmail.com> <AD873306-36DF-4953-9B71-824A3A702E17@serendipity.cx> <f470f68e0807071418k52a2aa1dv9c7c7199fd201812@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926) 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> Wait, top-post here says, "is there a point to the discussion going on here?" Are you suggesting that we not bring managesieve to publication as an RFC? Are you suggested what we can do for a next-generation sieve management system? Some of both? Aaron On Jul 7, 2008, at 2:18 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> > wrote: >> >> On Jul 7, 2008, at 1:40 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: >> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> --On Monday, July 07, 2008 08:27:59 PM +0100 Robert Burrell Donkin >>>> <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>> it seems unfortunate that this means that a separate port is >>>>> required >>>>> for sieve management. a compatible extension to IMAP would allow >>>>> sieve >>>>> management using the same URI. >>>> >>>> That makes the assumption that sieve scripts live only in IMAP >>>> servers, >>>> which I don't think we want to do. >>> >>> not at all :-) >>> >>> the function contained in this protocol is really very trivial. i >>> doubt that any implementator using a storage mechanism other than >>> IMAP >>> would bother creating an implementation rather than just reusing >>> their >>> preferred protocol at the application level. for example, HTTP is a >>> well known protocol whose secruity characterics are know well >>> understood. sieve maintainance using RESTful HTTP would be much >>> simpler than creating an implementations of this novel protocol. >> >> There are at least a dozen client and server implementations of this >> protocol that exist and interoperate and have been doing so for >> several >> years, so on that issue your point is negated by fact. > > how many implementations are not IMAP servers? > >> Further, HTTP is dramatically more complicated than this protocol, >> and I >> challenge the notion that its security is actually well understood >> enough to >> be applied to other applications without some seriously thorough >> and careful >> thinking. The only thing HTTP really buys you is the ability to re- >> use >> existing HTTP server frameworks. This is generally not a benefit to >> authors >> of email software, since most of us have already written our own >> server >> frameworks for IMAP and SMTP and the like. > > yes but the point was predicated on the apparent requirement that this > protocol should be usable beyond the community of email server > creators. yes, anyone who's spent time writing email servers will be > comfortable but that community is small. other users are likely to > find it much easier to reuse an existing protocol. > > - robert > 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 m67LIbpZ060477 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:18:37 -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 m67LIb69060476; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:18:37 -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 an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.251]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m67LIZ66060469 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:18:36 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c35so431023anc.44 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:18:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=VJBt6A/RDHSH+On4qikrJA02LvAuRPNnZjBX/bDc4aQ=; b=sz+vqBiUO/IaM8Ia4hzWGln8q9bx7Ty3dVHKrOpCB/ZxBUXMR+wA1kMav0knWvBAh3 RGyHJdo8qL/KQcZZj0PIZyDsgQ3BgWsKyQjFsFEL1Dirbj0rCcy/4F5BXrM2AiuNnvew ed8XtGNYmBlK6YmP9H6/8cNoNtpPLwzgdhHvw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=YPQPndJJ0eDopfWCRcIchNIjDiHHxOGd26RUEtyQRXBlpImnZgr2XuVTglCAeggD/W vQRVcHp2cnQ+ZoL46pFMrYGh65+7qjwb/LgqgRi4S4zOkYnz/V+tQh6diiqUn74070/R nwtIoRq11oHNB+K227ExjP9q+5a1hl39O7gJk= Received: by 10.100.41.9 with SMTP id o9mr3045409ano.84.1215465515467; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:18:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.255.14 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:18:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <f470f68e0807071418k52a2aa1dv9c7c7199fd201812@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 22:18:35 +0100 From: "Robert Burrell Donkin" <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> To: "Aaron Stone" <aaron@serendipity.cx> Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt Cc: SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> In-Reply-To: <AD873306-36DF-4953-9B71-824A3A702E17@serendipity.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <48669DF3.1020006@rename-it.nl> <4867CDB6.5030700@isode.com> <4871D210.3010009@rename-it.nl> <f470f68e0807070505i124daf79s6b7209b2cc29c20b@mail.gmail.com> <487209A6.4040309@isode.com> <f470f68e0807071227w2351ebf4g7e35dc4db81d4168@mail.gmail.com> <BE5281A49672F0D083DC8BB5@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu> <f470f68e0807071340w2b97941eh982273fe4534da26@mail.gmail.com> <AD873306-36DF-4953-9B71-824A3A702E17@serendipity.cx> 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, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> wrote: > > On Jul 7, 2008, at 1:40 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> wrote: >>> >>> --On Monday, July 07, 2008 08:27:59 PM +0100 Robert Burrell Donkin >>> <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>> it seems unfortunate that this means that a separate port is required >>>> for sieve management. a compatible extension to IMAP would allow sieve >>>> management using the same URI. >>> >>> That makes the assumption that sieve scripts live only in IMAP servers, >>> which I don't think we want to do. >> >> not at all :-) >> >> the function contained in this protocol is really very trivial. i >> doubt that any implementator using a storage mechanism other than IMAP >> would bother creating an implementation rather than just reusing their >> preferred protocol at the application level. for example, HTTP is a >> well known protocol whose secruity characterics are know well >> understood. sieve maintainance using RESTful HTTP would be much >> simpler than creating an implementations of this novel protocol. > > There are at least a dozen client and server implementations of this > protocol that exist and interoperate and have been doing so for several > years, so on that issue your point is negated by fact. how many implementations are not IMAP servers? > Further, HTTP is dramatically more complicated than this protocol, and I > challenge the notion that its security is actually well understood enough to > be applied to other applications without some seriously thorough and careful > thinking. The only thing HTTP really buys you is the ability to re-use > existing HTTP server frameworks. This is generally not a benefit to authors > of email software, since most of us have already written our own server > frameworks for IMAP and SMTP and the like. yes but the point was predicated on the apparent requirement that this protocol should be usable beyond the community of email server creators. yes, anyone who's spent time writing email servers will be comfortable but that community is small. other users are likely to find it much easier to reuse an existing protocol. - robert 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 m67L6Ft7059331 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:06:15 -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 m67L6FUC059330; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:06:15 -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 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 m67L6E2J059324 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:06:14 -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 977693F36; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:23:02 -0700 (PDT) Cc: SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Message-Id: <AD873306-36DF-4953-9B71-824A3A702E17@serendipity.cx> From: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> To: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <f470f68e0807071340w2b97941eh982273fe4534da26@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926) Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:06:13 -0700 References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <485E6169.1040202@isode.com> <48669DF3.1020006@rename-it.nl> <4867CDB6.5030700@isode.com> <4871D210.3010009@rename-it.nl> <f470f68e0807070505i124daf79s6b7209b2cc29c20b@mail.gmail.com> <487209A6.4040309@isode.com> <f470f68e0807071227w2351ebf4g7e35dc4db81d4168@mail.gmail.com> <BE5281A49672F0D083DC8BB5@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu> <f470f68e0807071340w2b97941eh982273fe4534da26@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926) 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 Jul 7, 2008, at 1:40 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> > wrote: >> --On Monday, July 07, 2008 08:27:59 PM +0100 Robert Burrell Donkin >> <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote: > > <snip> > >>> it seems unfortunate that this means that a separate port is >>> required >>> for sieve management. a compatible extension to IMAP would allow >>> sieve >>> management using the same URI. >> >> That makes the assumption that sieve scripts live only in IMAP >> servers, >> which I don't think we want to do. > > not at all :-) > > the function contained in this protocol is really very trivial. i > doubt that any implementator using a storage mechanism other than IMAP > would bother creating an implementation rather than just reusing their > preferred protocol at the application level. for example, HTTP is a > well known protocol whose secruity characterics are know well > understood. sieve maintainance using RESTful HTTP would be much > simpler than creating an implementations of this novel protocol. There are at least a dozen client and server implementations of this protocol that exist and interoperate and have been doing so for several years, so on that issue your point is negated by fact. Further, HTTP is dramatically more complicated than this protocol, and I challenge the notion that its security is actually well understood enough to be applied to other applications without some seriously thorough and careful thinking. The only thing HTTP really buys you is the ability to re-use existing HTTP server frameworks. This is generally not a benefit to authors of email software, since most of us have already written our own server frameworks for IMAP and SMTP and the like. 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 m67L0jr2058559 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:00:45 -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 m67L0jlC058558; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:00:45 -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 an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.247]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m67L0hiu058552 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:00:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c35so429869anc.44 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:00:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=4miBkCgAIRjACnOXhtkmPrWJ4ykU3SuIf2d8SAWG6Ns=; b=Dlnch/5NCLD4T48SR2g0+HuGgxeJPrSSF78ifygM8z4Vr2AE/0WyncevANwUx9ETCI m500ed1+PhlcTSaG0n3/MNxx9aGoTmMnvTMTEIRnhhzpSJtLHjlJJZwldQu905CLh3sf FTsroYv/v2Idh4HkhHnkMCoZ0YjvRbzN9IbEA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=IpatNOtUPovS4p4qI9nVyFrcL12NXbitem5hTWIQa/88aFm4CrpeH/3ehNXu51mDk8 os3zsySUhsXN/wb2TXKyYxlmzs0tn8XExXZ4UkWxZSHc+QkDp4EwWTrNhBInQneN0Qsq 4RTezQIOPO8ENArztjYy9cFW8Vj0ntC7n8FG4= Received: by 10.100.215.14 with SMTP id n14mr3997195ang.148.1215464442883; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.255.14 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <f470f68e0807071400t316f91feg525bf5222921769b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 22:00:42 +0100 From: "Robert Burrell Donkin" <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> To: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <jhutz@cmu.edu> Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt Cc: "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, "Stephan Bosch" <stephan@rename-it.nl>, SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> In-Reply-To: <23E5AAAF2E30219C5C0B4A37@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <48669DF3.1020006@rename-it.nl> <4867CDB6.5030700@isode.com> <4871D210.3010009@rename-it.nl> <f470f68e0807070505i124daf79s6b7209b2cc29c20b@mail.gmail.com> <487209A6.4040309@isode.com> <f470f68e0807071227w2351ebf4g7e35dc4db81d4168@mail.gmail.com> <BE5281A49672F0D083DC8BB5@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu> <f470f68e0807071340w2b97941eh982273fe4534da26@mail.gmail.com> <23E5AAAF2E30219C5C0B4A37@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.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> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> wrote: > --On Monday, July 07, 2008 09:40:11 PM +0100 Robert Burrell Donkin > <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> wrote: >>> >>> --On Monday, July 07, 2008 08:27:59 PM +0100 Robert Burrell Donkin >>> <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>> it seems unfortunate that this means that a separate port is required >>>> for sieve management. a compatible extension to IMAP would allow sieve >>>> management using the same URI. >>> >>> That makes the assumption that sieve scripts live only in IMAP servers, >>> which I don't think we want to do. >> >> not at all :-) >> >> the function contained in this protocol is really very trivial. i >> doubt that any implementator using a storage mechanism other than IMAP >> would bother creating an implementation rather than just reusing their >> preferred protocol at the application level. for example, HTTP is a >> well known protocol whose secruity characterics are know well >> understood. sieve maintainance using RESTful HTTP would be much >> simpler than creating an implementations of this novel protocol. > > Only if you have a web server and a bunch of related infrastructure lying > around. HTTP serving libraries of reasonable quality are common > If you're implementing sieve support in an MTA, such that admins or > even user can provide sieve scripts to be run as incoming mail is being > accepted (rather than waiting until it hits the mail store), then you may > not have the luxury of requiring people who want to use the new feature to > run web servers on their inbound MX's. opening a new port with a new protocol with unknown and untested security characteristics sounds unlikely to fly to me. system admins are much more likely to want to use FTP or HTTP for out-of-protocol communication (but this is drifting OT) > Now, I don't claim to be such an implementor, but I don't believe that HTTP > is the answer to all protocol problems any more than HTML is the answer to > all user interface problems. IMO there are very good reasons why HTTP as a protocol has become dominant (but that's drifting OT) - robert 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 m67KkxBH057571 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:46:59 -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 m67Kkx67057570; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:46:59 -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 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 m67KkvCv057563 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:46:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from jhutz@cmu.edu) Received: from atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu (host-66-202-66-11.har.choiceone.net [66.202.66.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by jackfruit.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m67Kkrgp000806 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 16:46:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:46:53 -0400 From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> To: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> cc: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl>, SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>, jhutz@cmu.edu Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt Message-ID: <23E5AAAF2E30219C5C0B4A37@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu> In-Reply-To: <f470f68e0807071340w2b97941eh982273fe4534da26@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <485E6169.1040202@isode.com> <48669DF3.1020006@rename-it.nl> <4867CDB6.5030700@isode.com> <4871D210.3010009@rename-it.nl> <f470f68e0807070505i124daf79s6b7209b2cc29c20b@mail.gmail.com> <487209A6.4040309@isode.com> <f470f68e0807071227w2351ebf4g7e35dc4db81d4168@mail.gmail.com> <BE5281A49672F0D083DC8BB5@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu> <f470f68e0807071340w2b97941eh982273fe4534da26@mail.gmail.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 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 Monday, July 07, 2008 09:40:11 PM +0100 Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> wrote: >> --On Monday, July 07, 2008 08:27:59 PM +0100 Robert Burrell Donkin >> <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote: > > <snip> > >>> it seems unfortunate that this means that a separate port is required >>> for sieve management. a compatible extension to IMAP would allow sieve >>> management using the same URI. >> >> That makes the assumption that sieve scripts live only in IMAP servers, >> which I don't think we want to do. > > not at all :-) > > the function contained in this protocol is really very trivial. i > doubt that any implementator using a storage mechanism other than IMAP > would bother creating an implementation rather than just reusing their > preferred protocol at the application level. for example, HTTP is a > well known protocol whose secruity characterics are know well > understood. sieve maintainance using RESTful HTTP would be much > simpler than creating an implementations of this novel protocol. Only if you have a web server and a bunch of related infrastructure lying around. If you're implementing sieve support in an MTA, such that admins or even user can provide sieve scripts to be run as incoming mail is being accepted (rather than waiting until it hits the mail store), then you may not have the luxury of requiring people who want to use the new feature to run web servers on their inbound MX's. Now, I don't claim to be such an implementor, but I don't believe that HTTP is the answer to all protocol problems any more than HTML is the answer to all user interface problems. -- 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 m67KeDel057230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:40:13 -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 m67KeDeL057229; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:40:13 -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 wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.224]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m67KeC5A057222 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:40:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i31so847731wxd.28 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:40:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=j0mpYgbX0SEUYg+JREhAdpF1rilfTgFZOVhLM6P/pV0=; b=jt9G3PXt3jobaVllVSRoTvAfWVSjYHZyaiF0S/g4DGQAT+USkmELjzOA+L1TG3RNxm lT+2zSBf4uMwc2Fg1cftFKiroiXzD5TEM09vHS5LKb0gvGAB3aiocqSiEf7N1rp+Cbxw x/7d8ghp7EsICNjZ0fV9OukkoH7AXPam0jYio= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=XceBr2bymzJ3ciODVJdcndGw4gAZTMwHoodD7gKh2JYkczBhBiHO1iSGUXirSLBJNj 0/rTmyNAPrg3xVBQgGem43qkDDC7gEnRuiazUl4DYXzCgmuRbI3dZk8C9XAkbMdtW8YE vNg+Njxoggxq5wcIIMRyLG9QUWOgmio/ixWGU= Received: by 10.100.201.9 with SMTP id y9mr3970949anf.60.1215463211874; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:40:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.255.14 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:40:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <f470f68e0807071340w2b97941eh982273fe4534da26@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 21:40:11 +0100 From: "Robert Burrell Donkin" <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> To: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <jhutz@cmu.edu> Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt Cc: "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, "Stephan Bosch" <stephan@rename-it.nl>, SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> In-Reply-To: <BE5281A49672F0D083DC8BB5@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <485E6169.1040202@isode.com> <48669DF3.1020006@rename-it.nl> <4867CDB6.5030700@isode.com> <4871D210.3010009@rename-it.nl> <f470f68e0807070505i124daf79s6b7209b2cc29c20b@mail.gmail.com> <487209A6.4040309@isode.com> <f470f68e0807071227w2351ebf4g7e35dc4db81d4168@mail.gmail.com> <BE5281A49672F0D083DC8BB5@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.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> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> wrote: > --On Monday, July 07, 2008 08:27:59 PM +0100 Robert Burrell Donkin > <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote: <snip> >> it seems unfortunate that this means that a separate port is required >> for sieve management. a compatible extension to IMAP would allow sieve >> management using the same URI. > > That makes the assumption that sieve scripts live only in IMAP servers, > which I don't think we want to do. not at all :-) the function contained in this protocol is really very trivial. i doubt that any implementator using a storage mechanism other than IMAP would bother creating an implementation rather than just reusing their preferred protocol at the application level. for example, HTTP is a well known protocol whose secruity characterics are know well understood. sieve maintainance using RESTful HTTP would be much simpler than creating an implementations of this novel protocol. - robert 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 m67KamQO056932 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:36:48 -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 m67KamSi056931; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:36:48 -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 m67Kaj1R056919 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:36:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from stephan@rename-it.nl) Received: from klara.student.utwente.nl ([130.89.162.218] helo=[10.168.3.2]) 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 1KFwLi-0006PA-RE; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:26:10 +0200 Message-ID: <48727E5F.8000509@rename-it.nl> Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:36:47 +0200 From: Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> CC: SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt (OT) References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <485E6169.1040202@isode.com> <48669DF3.1020006@rename-it.nl> <4867CDB6.5030700@isode.com> <4871D210.3010009@rename-it.nl> <f470f68e0807070505i124daf79s6b7209b2cc29c20b@mail.gmail.com> <487209A6.4040309@isode.com> <f470f68e0807071227w2351ebf4g7e35dc4db81d4168@mail.gmail.com> <01EFE4A1-D33E-44C4-875B-D70052E2B25D@serendipity.cx> <48727BBE.6090607@rename-it.nl> <F83CBE06-A4A5-485A-9FE9-524EBEA8788E@serendipity.cx> In-Reply-To: <F83CBE06-A4A5-485A-9FE9-524EBEA8788E@serendipity.cx> 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=-1.822, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -0.40, AWL 1.18, 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> Aaron Stone schreef: > Hey, that's the same domain as in your email address! ;-) > > Is your implementation now consistent with the document in question? > Not quite, as I did not release any changes as of yet. My latest changes should bring it pretty close though. However, I still don't have a proper quota implementation (which i personally see as a requirement). Regards, Stephan. 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 m67KV4UM056474 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:31:04 -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 m67KV4Bx056471; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:31:04 -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 m67KV3La056465 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:31:04 -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 DA66C3F36; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:47:51 -0700 (PDT) Cc: SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Message-Id: <F83CBE06-A4A5-485A-9FE9-524EBEA8788E@serendipity.cx> From: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> To: Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl> In-Reply-To: <48727BBE.6090607@rename-it.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926) Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt (OT) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:31:03 -0700 References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <485E6169.1040202@isode.com> <48669DF3.1020006@rename-it.nl> <4867CDB6.5030700@isode.com> <4871D210.3010009@rename-it.nl> <f470f68e0807070505i124daf79s6b7209b2cc29c20b@mail.gmail.com> <487209A6.4040309@isode.com> <f470f68e0807071227w2351ebf4g7e35dc4db81d4168@mail.gmail.com> <01EFE4A1-D33E-44C4-875B-D70052E2B25D@serendipity.cx> <48727BBE.6090607@rename-it.nl> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926) 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> Hey, that's the same domain as in your email address! ;-) Is your implementation now consistent with the document in question? On Jul 7, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Stephan Bosch wrote: > Aaron Stone schreef: >> On Jul 7, 2008, at 12:27 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > >> managesieve for dovecot: >> http://sinas.rename-it.nl/~sirius/ > Off topic: that url is old. :) The new url is: > > http://www.rename-it.nl/dovecot > > 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 m67KPc3C056166 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:25:38 -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 m67KPchn056165; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:25:38 -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 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 m67KPaaZ056145 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:25:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from stephan@rename-it.nl) Received: from klara.student.utwente.nl ([130.89.162.218] helo=[10.168.3.2]) 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 1KFwAs-00061O-2g; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:14:58 +0200 Message-ID: <48727BBE.6090607@rename-it.nl> Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:25:34 +0200 From: Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> CC: SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt (OT) References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <485E6169.1040202@isode.com> <48669DF3.1020006@rename-it.nl> <4867CDB6.5030700@isode.com> <4871D210.3010009@rename-it.nl> <f470f68e0807070505i124daf79s6b7209b2cc29c20b@mail.gmail.com> <487209A6.4040309@isode.com> <f470f68e0807071227w2351ebf4g7e35dc4db81d4168@mail.gmail.com> <01EFE4A1-D33E-44C4-875B-D70052E2B25D@serendipity.cx> In-Reply-To: <01EFE4A1-D33E-44C4-875B-D70052E2B25D@serendipity.cx> 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=-1.816, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -0.40, AWL 1.18, 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> Aaron Stone schreef: > > On Jul 7, 2008, at 12:27 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > managesieve for dovecot: > http://sinas.rename-it.nl/~sirius/ Off topic: that url is old. :) The new url is: http://www.rename-it.nl/dovecot 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 m67KN7Qx055938 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:23:07 -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 m67KN7fa055937; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:23:07 -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 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 m67KN67R055928 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:23:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from jhutz@cmu.edu) Received: from atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu (host-66-202-66-11.har.choiceone.net [66.202.66.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by jackfruit.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m67KN1bi029756 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 16:23:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:23:01 -0400 From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> To: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> cc: Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl>, SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>, jhutz@cmu.edu Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt Message-ID: <BE5281A49672F0D083DC8BB5@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu> In-Reply-To: <f470f68e0807071227w2351ebf4g7e35dc4db81d4168@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <485E6169.1040202@isode.com> <48669DF3.1020006@rename-it.nl> <4867CDB6.5030700@isode.com> <4871D210.3010009@rename-it.nl> <f470f68e0807070505i124daf79s6b7209b2cc29c20b@mail.gmail.com> <487209A6.4040309@isode.com> <f470f68e0807071227w2351ebf4g7e35dc4db81d4168@mail.gmail.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 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 Monday, July 07, 2008 08:27:59 PM +0100 Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote: > i can see that's a tough choice: codification of existing (possibly > dubious but at least well understood) practice verses the creation of > a better protocol The situation here is that we are standardizing a protocol which was already widely deployed. In such cases, it is usually better to avoid breaking interoperability with the deployed base, especially if the deployment experience largely shows that the existing protocol works. Sometimes, there is no way to avoid making a backward-incompatible change to correct a problem, but I don't think this is such a case. > it seems unfortunate that this means that a separate port is required > for sieve management. a compatible extension to IMAP would allow sieve > management using the same URI. That makes the assumption that sieve scripts live only in IMAP servers, which I don't think we want to do. -- 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 m67KK61i055629 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:20:06 -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 m67KK69e055628; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:20:06 -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 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 m67KK55b055615 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:20:05 -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 BEF6245E1; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:36:52 -0700 (PDT) Cc: "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, "Stephan Bosch" <stephan@rename-it.nl>, SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Message-Id: <01EFE4A1-D33E-44C4-875B-D70052E2B25D@serendipity.cx> From: Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx> To: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <f470f68e0807071227w2351ebf4g7e35dc4db81d4168@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926) Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:20:03 -0700 References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <485E6169.1040202@isode.com> <48669DF3.1020006@rename-it.nl> <4867CDB6.5030700@isode.com> <4871D210.3010009@rename-it.nl> <f470f68e0807070505i124daf79s6b7209b2cc29c20b@mail.gmail.com> <487209A6.4040309@isode.com> <f470f68e0807071227w2351ebf4g7e35dc4db81d4168@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926) 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 Jul 7, 2008, at 12:27 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Alexey Melnikov > <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote: >> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl> >>> wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> >>>> Ok, I did some preliminary implementation of the new commands. >>>> Regarding >>>> the >>>> NOOP command I have only one (nitpicking) remark. The managesieve >>>> specification explicitly lists which commands are valid before >>>> authentication. However, by introducing extensions this becomes a >>>> little >>>> more sketchy. The RENAMESCRIPT command is clearly not useful before >>>> authentication. However, implementors with IMAP experience might >>>> think of >>>> allowing NOOP before authentication, because in IMAP the NOOP >>>> command >>>> may >>>> be issued before authentication. >>>> >>> >>> failing to allow NOOP as may be expected violates the principle of >>> least surprise. >>> >>> is there any reason for this? >>> >>> in general, this protocol seems more than a little peculiar. it's >>> close in syntax to IMAP but has enough differences for IMAP >>> implementors to be surprised and confused by the differences. >>> >>> is there any reason for this choice? >>> >> >> The protocol is trying to stay backward compatible with CMU >> implementation >> (and there are many other client and server implementations that >> mimic it). >> If I were to design a new protocol from scratch, I would have made >> it as >> similar to IMAP as possible. But due to existing deployments, I >> don't think >> this would be a good option. > > i can see that's a tough choice: codification of existing (possibly > dubious but at least well understood) practice verses the creation of > a better protocol Documenting what exists is the limit of what we can do with this document. The protocol itself is already implemented by several servers and clients and has good interoperability*. We need to freeze the current state and call it "version 1" before we start working on version 2. * actually, I need to compare my implementation with the document that's been posted, because I recall at least two things that I followed drafts on but clients did not like, one was about response codes and another was about {number+} vs. {number}, but I don't remember exactly when and what those interop problems were. I do know that the clients in question changed to accommodate my server and not vice versa, because I was following the draft spec and they agreed. Other server implementations I know about: managesieve in dbmail (I wrote this one): https://svn.ic-s.nl/svn/dbmail/trunk/dbmail/src/timsieve.c managesieve for dovecot: http://sinas.rename-it.nl/~sirius/ managesieve in citadel: www.citadel.org > it seems unfortunate that this means that a separate port is required > for sieve management. a compatible extension to IMAP would allow sieve > management using the same URI. It's entirely possible that this is the future of sieve script management. I, for one, would really like to see sieve scripts exposed through some namespace within folder annotations. There are problems with that, though, and it's not going to be implemented everywhere tomorrow, if at all. So we need to finish documenting what we have that works for now. 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 m67JS2Wq051005 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:28:02 -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 m67JS2cM051004; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:28:02 -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 hs-out-0708.google.com (hs-out-0708.google.com [64.233.178.241]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m67JRxBr050993 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:28:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com) Received: by hs-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id 55so405326hsc.10 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:27:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=XA5yR5o7pue/mcaaRMex4Qh5o3qCA+Ux7SML/BxUUHo=; b=byCo3Ia87IHsQcEJyZu1Z0+9+gBWXpQqAuAefY8/wgd3KsvI6VmLKsLLQT0Ge5WRo6 5I+sniI7oozSAG8Rp4uov40fcPLSMluXi15iXhb+6aP+zuP2Cxo3Um4oiiGiq5RB3jCN f+f2uFmLo+BfQQPvhN/CXUFu0km6jKcNI2dXg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=MLRKEX39iyCid4Gds4OSSF5URZY/LZdiiu4vibmz3a/LwTR84/co5HHRZyHh10fR4r X+NEUa2Y6bUNpNBlYa1cH+ZgehB2nEQVM4N4U9xgAGKraFq52440n6nqnvD46912C8n4 rvgPycLA2M70omYXbvCHydmxUs1lIJtsUGgH8= Received: by 10.100.110.15 with SMTP id i15mr3837563anc.130.1215458879217; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.255.14 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <f470f68e0807071227w2351ebf4g7e35dc4db81d4168@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:27:59 +0100 From: "Robert Burrell Donkin" <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> To: "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt Cc: "Stephan Bosch" <stephan@rename-it.nl>, SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> In-Reply-To: <487209A6.4040309@isode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <485E6169.1040202@isode.com> <48669DF3.1020006@rename-it.nl> <4867CDB6.5030700@isode.com> <4871D210.3010009@rename-it.nl> <f470f68e0807070505i124daf79s6b7209b2cc29c20b@mail.gmail.com> <487209A6.4040309@isode.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> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl> >> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> >>> Ok, I did some preliminary implementation of the new commands. Regarding >>> the >>> NOOP command I have only one (nitpicking) remark. The managesieve >>> specification explicitly lists which commands are valid before >>> authentication. However, by introducing extensions this becomes a little >>> more sketchy. The RENAMESCRIPT command is clearly not useful before >>> authentication. However, implementors with IMAP experience might think of >>> allowing NOOP before authentication, because in IMAP the NOOP command >>> may >>> be issued before authentication. >>> >> >> failing to allow NOOP as may be expected violates the principle of >> least surprise. >> >> is there any reason for this? >> >> in general, this protocol seems more than a little peculiar. it's >> close in syntax to IMAP but has enough differences for IMAP >> implementors to be surprised and confused by the differences. >> >> is there any reason for this choice? >> > > The protocol is trying to stay backward compatible with CMU implementation > (and there are many other client and server implementations that mimic it). > If I were to design a new protocol from scratch, I would have made it as > similar to IMAP as possible. But due to existing deployments, I don't think > this would be a good option. i can see that's a tough choice: codification of existing (possibly dubious but at least well understood) practice verses the creation of a better protocol it seems unfortunate that this means that a separate port is required for sieve management. a compatible extension to IMAP would allow sieve management using the same URI. - robert 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 m67GbLGc035606 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:37:21 -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 m67GbLli035605; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:37:21 -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 mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::20]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m67GbIjX035597 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:37:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wwwrun@core3.amsl.com) Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 4B7DE3A68B8; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:37:11 -0700 (PDT) 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: Editheader Extension' to Proposed Standard Message-Id: <20080707163711.4B7DE3A68B8@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:37:11 -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> The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Sieve Email Filtering: Editheader Extension ' <draft-ietf-sieve-editheader-11.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-editheader-11.txt Technical Summary The SIEVE editheader extensions provides a way for a SIEVE script to add or remove top-level message headers in the message being processed. This allows SIEVE to interact with other components in the mail delivery system via information in message headers. The extension defines an addheader action with the option to have the header inserted at the start or end of the entire block of message headers. Consideration is given to issues of header encoding and possible length limits, as required by internet email standards. The extension defines a deleteheader action which can optionally delete all, the last, or a specific indexed header in the top-level message headers. The draft has a detailed description of how interactions with other SIEVE extensions/actions are handled. The security considerations section covers several identified security concerns. Working Group Summary This document has been discussed and reviewed in the SIEVE Working Group. There is strong consensus in the Working Group to publish this document as a Proposed Standard. The editheader extension was originally submitted as an individual contribution in April 2003. The first revision involved some major changes (one of which is discussed below) as suggested by feedback on the list. Subsequent to that, only minor changes were done. Working group last call was issued in March 2005 and a number of minor clarifications and errors were fixed based on comments. One issue which did arise during last call was that of the original replaceheader action, which was dropped after the very first draft. That received a fair amount of discussion at the time, and there was a feeling that it was too complex. A number of people have expressed disappointment that that action was not present in the draft during last call. However, the original arguments against it were felt to still be valid, and there was consensus that editheader should proceed without this action. Protocol Quality A number of implementations of this extension have already been developed and in some cases deployed. Most participants are eager to see this spec published as an RFC. Personal Document Shepherd: Cyrus Daboo <mailto:cyrus@daboo.name> AD: Lisa Dusseault <mailto:lisa@osafoundation.org> Note to RFC Editor In Section 9, add a new paragraph after the first paragraph. This is the first Sieve extension to be standardized that allows alteration of messages being processed by Sieve engines. A Sieve script that uses Sieve tests defined in RFC 5228 [SIEVE], the editheader extension, and the redirect action back to the same user can keep some state between different invocations of the same script for the same message. But note that it would not be possible to introduce an infinite loop using any such script, because each iteration adds a new Received header field, so email loop prevention described in RFC 2821 will eventually non deliver the message, and because the editheader extension is explicitly prohibited to alter or delete Received header fields (i.e. it can't interfere with loop prevention). In Section 9, 3rd paragraph, add new material after the first sentence: Any change in a message content may interfere with digital signature mechanisms that include the header in the signed material. NEW material: For example, changes to (or deletion/addition of) header fields included in the "SHOULD be included in the signature" list in section 5.5 of [RFC4871] can invalidate DKIM signatures. This also includes DKIM signatures that guaranty a header field absence. The editheader extension doesn't directly affect RFC 2822 header field signatures generated using S/MIME [RFC3851] or OpenPGP [RFC3156], because when S/MIME/OpenPGP is used to signed header fields, a copy of RFC 2822 header fields is included inside signed message/rfc822 body part. However a software written to detect differences between the inner (signed) copy of header fields and the outer (modified by editheader) header fields might be affected by changes done by editheader. OLD: However, implementations MUST NOT permit attempts to delete "Received" header fields and MUST permit both addition and deletion of the "Subject" header field. NEW: However, implementations MUST NOT permit attempts to delete "Received" and "Auto-Submitted" header fields and MUST permit both addition ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ and deletion of the "Subject" header field. 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 m67CJ4lp010729 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:19:05 -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 m67CJ4fG010728; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:19:04 -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 m67CJ3ES010720 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:19:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com) Received: from [172.16.2.176] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SHIJtgA055LN@rufus.isode.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:19:02 +0100 Message-ID: <487209A6.4040309@isode.com> Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:18:46 +0100 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: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> CC: Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl>, SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <485E6169.1040202@isode.com> <48669DF3.1020006@rename-it.nl> <4867CDB6.5030700@isode.com> <4871D210.3010009@rename-it.nl> <f470f68e0807070505i124daf79s6b7209b2cc29c20b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <f470f68e0807070505i124daf79s6b7209b2cc29c20b@mail.gmail.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> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: >On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl> wrote: > > ><snip> > > >>Ok, I did some preliminary implementation of the new commands. Regarding the >>NOOP command I have only one (nitpicking) remark. The managesieve >>specification explicitly lists which commands are valid before >>authentication. However, by introducing extensions this becomes a little >>more sketchy. The RENAMESCRIPT command is clearly not useful before >>authentication. However, implementors with IMAP experience might think of >>allowing NOOP before authentication, because in IMAP the NOOP command may >>be issued before authentication. >> >> > >failing to allow NOOP as may be expected violates the principle of >least surprise. > >is there any reason for this? > >in general, this protocol seems more than a little peculiar. it's >close in syntax to IMAP but has enough differences for IMAP >implementors to be surprised and confused by the differences. > >is there any reason for this choice? > > The protocol is trying to stay backward compatible with CMU implementation (and there are many other client and server implementations that mimic it). If I were to design a new protocol from scratch, I would have made it as similar to IMAP as possible. But due to existing deployments, I don't think this would be a good option. 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 m67C5dwc009670 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:05:39 -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 m67C5dDh009669; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:05:39 -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 wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.232]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m67C5btY009662 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:05:38 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i31so721362wxd.28 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:05:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=ntXHB85Q5DzMU6+jSKLG7aX3NcFD36zC/l7yr5NGa0M=; b=RCWKItkKRu6KltqJ7eDxAhpxmp5xKdcJniYK0kdLstxJiM2nosTNRq9IpJniIy0pxD DBpQCeHWDYnDTnWwThveum8TyXRaJrVYR2d/CYwP8nCIeyy/zze//9hxKPdRDb4x+5Qd m52Z4eXf8hLSiIekwQ+l1wKJOGM5CoGGgfdmk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=KG/DLYFRQvbQXagMr7uhVFPdASDs3ajdkTyAaJZED1cm0ochD5DQTuvzx78HfHYczz L9jFmpzOqJAU9M0X1fuKED9DGKauH+bgOQILmr3OCVZxcfpSNLH89bqKrIhpO3vBa28Y 3OZnL8EUFpfEY72WMQ/r3WKQPwOzb58UXYrKk= Received: by 10.100.215.5 with SMTP id n5mr3059309ang.6.1215432337133; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.255.14 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <f470f68e0807070505i124daf79s6b7209b2cc29c20b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:05:37 +0100 From: "Robert Burrell Donkin" <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> To: "Stephan Bosch" <stephan@rename-it.nl> Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt Cc: "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> In-Reply-To: <4871D210.3010009@rename-it.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <485E6169.1040202@isode.com> <48669DF3.1020006@rename-it.nl> <4867CDB6.5030700@isode.com> <4871D210.3010009@rename-it.nl> 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, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl> wrote: > <snip> > Ok, I did some preliminary implementation of the new commands. Regarding the > NOOP command I have only one (nitpicking) remark. The managesieve > specification explicitly lists which commands are valid before > authentication. However, by introducing extensions this becomes a little > more sketchy. The RENAMESCRIPT command is clearly not useful before > authentication. However, implementors with IMAP experience might think of > allowing NOOP before authentication, because in IMAP the NOOP command may > be issued before authentication. failing to allow NOOP as may be expected violates the principle of least surprise. is there any reason for this? in general, this protocol seems more than a little peculiar. it's close in syntax to IMAP but has enough differences for IMAP implementors to be surprised and confused by the differences. is there any reason for this choice? - robert 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 m678LqN8088677 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 01:21:52 -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 m678LqLC088676; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 01:21:52 -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 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 m678LmIf088664 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 01:21:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from stephan@rename-it.nl) Received: from ewi1247.ewi.utwente.nl ([130.89.12.150] helo=[127.0.0.1]) 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 1KFksZ-0002P0-Vv; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:11:20 +0200 Message-ID: <4871D210.3010009@rename-it.nl> Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:21:36 +0200 From: Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> CC: SIEVE <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt References: <20080621210001.E1B343A698C@core3.amsl.com> <485E6169.1040202@isode.com> <48669DF3.1020006@rename-it.nl> <4867CDB6.5030700@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4867CDB6.5030700@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=-1.798, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -0.40, AWL 1.20, 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> Hi Alexey, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> I thought the idea was to simply allow and ignore the '+' for legacy >> implementations. >> > ManageSieve was largely documenting Cyrus timsieved and timsieved > never emitted "+" to clients. > If you know any server that emits non-synchronizing literals to > clients, please let me know. But absent any evidence that this would > break deployed servers, I would prefer to keep consistency with IMAP > and timsieved. Ok, if I encounter any in the near future I will notify you. >> Strictly requiring it from clients seems cumbersome and will, to my >> opinion, >> likely introduce even more incompatibilities. > As far as I know ManageSieve never allowed clients to send > synchronizing literals (literals without +). timsieved allows for that > (because it reuses IMAP parser), but I don't think it ever emits IMAP > style "+ go ahead" back to clients. So it is not consistent with IMAP > either. > > If people think that support for synchronizing literals in the > direction from the client to the server is needed, I can add that. But > I am not convinced that this is a problem either. I am not so much interested in the (IMAP) synchronizing semantics of the '+' character. With version 08 of the managesieve specification the '+' character was indicated as 'only allowed from clients' in the comment somewhere in the ABNF. I am worried that some client implementors have interpreted this as being optional and decided to drop the '+' altogether. Now it is explicitly required from the clients, making such clients fail (if they indeed exist, let's hope not). >> I do like the new extensions you introduced. :) I'll thoroughly read the >> new document in a few days to update my ManageSieve implementation. > Sounds good to me :-). Ok, I did some preliminary implementation of the new commands. Regarding the NOOP command I have only one (nitpicking) remark. The managesieve specification explicitly lists which commands are valid before authentication. However, by introducing extensions this becomes a little more sketchy. The RENAMESCRIPT command is clearly not useful before authentication. However, implementors with IMAP experience might think of allowing NOOP before authentication, because in IMAP the NOOP command may be issued before authentication. I think it cannot hurt to make explicit whether these new commands may be issued before authentication. Other than that, I found a typo in section 1.3 in the TRYLATER explanation: 'This response code only make sense when returned in a NO/BYE response.'. You should add an 's' there somewhere. Regards, -- Stephan Bosch stephan@rename-it.nl
- A question/comment on the envelope test regarding… Stephan Bosch
- Re: A question/comment on the envelope test regar… Ned Freed
- Re: A question/comment on the envelope test regar… Stephan Bosch