Re: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-10.txt

[Michael Haardt <[e-mail]>]

> >I don't consider of the frequency of display important, but the fact
> >that the value may unveil which mailbox the notification originated from,
> >violating my privacy looking at the networks the notification may cross.
> >  
> >
> I think you are asking for owner-token being used instead of owner-email.

The owner-token may solve the problem, but there is no technical reason
to restrict owner-email not doing that as well, plus giving a mail
address instead of letting the victim figure out who to ask.

> >That does not mean I would like to see ":from" influencing the
> >owner.  All I would like to specify is WHO is responsible, so
> >people using Sieve can be sure WHO to address for a changed
> >owner address, should they care.  If we say
> >
> >  The parameter value depends on the implementation
> >
> So far so good.

I would be glad to see that included!

> >  The only
> >  requirement is that the address reaches the owner of the script.
> >  
> >
> I don't think this is even true. The only requirement is that the 
> sysadmin operating the system that is running the Sieve engine can 
> figure out which Sieve script (and for which user) generated a notification.

Now I am really confused.  I thought the owner would be the user the
script belongs to, not the admin of the sending system.  The admin should
always be able to figure out abuse.

Anyway: If we can agree on "it's implementation-dependent", we don't
have to define further terms, and it addresses all my issues.

> I would not argue against having another example, that shows that 
> owner-email can be different.

Perhaps that's a good idea, despite showing something that depends on
the implementation, but at least people see it does!

Michael