Standard to selectively disable rules in sieve script?
Patrick Ben Koetter <p@state-of-mind.de> Wed, 26 March 2008 22:02 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 C2DD13A6CE6 for <ietfarch-sieve-archive-Aet6aiqu@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.368
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.368 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, 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 77UAMtQS8+3K for <ietfarch-sieve-archive-Aet6aiqu@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (Balder-227.Proper.COM [192.245.12.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B73A93A681E for <sieve-archive-Aet6aiqu@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:02:57 -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 m2QLjOwZ013612 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:45:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id m2QLjOAY013611; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:45:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from mail.state-of-mind.de (mail.state-of-mind.de [194.126.158.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m2QLjLIw013604 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:45:23 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from p@state-of-mind.de)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.state-of-mind.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3A0480F9FE; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:46:44 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=state-of-mind.de; s=mail0801; t=1206568004; bh=LE43ffBuAX9KjZmNR8jvSG/X5GUF/XL9893IYy XAzR4=; h=X-Virus-Scanned:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition: Content-Transfer-Encoding:User-Agent; b=PUSwsuiyLEpv6VVsDYnE8eo7Sp Q+eaaJMLmU5e55Um//a8PrPDX+WWg0M0kcnfaSUO+4bIltQO+Fvl/6q1LkPi0+aWDXn v/QvRWXB2GfmRWuL4wip+gzEkeHEccKusfYZhrkHeXV7M41isuCMloTaJDeNIaUMfvb 4h01sS8Ww3o=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at state-of-mind.de
Received: from mail.state-of-mind.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.state-of-mind.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ALgj2c4AfP0u; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:46:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from state-of-mind.de (gw.state-of-mind.de [62.245.202.194]) by mail.state-of-mind.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D2C80F9CE; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:46:44 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:45:19 +0100
From: Patrick Ben Koetter <p@state-of-mind.de>
To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org
Subject: Standard to selectively disable rules in sieve script?
Message-ID: <20080326214519.GA28971@state-of-mind.de>
Mail-Followup-To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11)
Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
I've been reading the RFCs and couldn't find an answer to the following question: Is there a standard syntax/notation to disable a single rule/command within a sieve script that contains more than one rule/command? I couldn't find anything in the RFCs, but what I found is that everybody seems to use comments to disable a rule. So far so good... The bad thing seems to be that even though everybody agrees to use comments nobody seems to agree on one way to do it - one way all implementations understand. My research indicates that interoperability among sieve script clients is lost when it comes to disabling rules. A script edited by avelsieve - this is pure fiction, I didn't test this, but it serves to proove my point - (probably) won't work for KMail, because KMail is unable to recognize rules that have been disabled by avelsieve and vice versa. If I am correct, then - in my eyes - this is a major drawback in making Sieve useful and popular. Am I missing something? Thanks, p@rick -- state of mind Agentur für Kommunikation, Design und Softwareentwicklung Patrick Koetter Tel: 089 45227227 Echinger Strasse 3 Fax: 089 45227226 85386 Eching Web: http://www.state-of-mind.de Amtsgericht München Partnerschaftsregister PR 563
- Standard to selectively disable rules in sieve sc… Patrick Ben Koetter
- Re: Standard to selectively disable rules in siev… Aaron Stone
- Re: Standard to selectively disable rules in siev… Kjetil Torgrim Homme
- Re: Standard to selectively disable rules in siev… Cyrus Daboo
- Re: Standard to selectively disable rules in siev… Tony Hansen
- Re: Standard to selectively disable rules in siev… Patrick Ben Koetter
- Re: Standard to selectively disable rules in siev… Alexandros Vellis
- Re: Standard to selectively disable rules in siev… Alexey Melnikov