draft-martin-sieve-notify-01.txt
Jutta Degener <jutta@sendmail.com> Mon, 28 January 2002 16:52 UTC
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0SGqaX12357 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:52:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost.sendmail.com (toad-1635-17.dslbr.toad.net [162.33.201.17] (may be forged)) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0SGqY312352 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:52:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from jutta@localhost) by localhost.sendmail.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g0SGpn609781 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:51:49 -0800
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:51:49 -0800
From: Jutta Degener <jutta@sendmail.com>
To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org
Subject: draft-martin-sieve-notify-01.txt
Message-ID: <20020128165149.GA9673@jutta.sendmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i
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! I've just read the sieve-notify-01 draft closely for the first time. Here are some questions and comments. Meta: - It has expired, and I notice that there were some discussions on the mailing list last July and a promise of a new version soon -- what is its status now? - The draft's header lists the title incorrectly as <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-01.txt>. 3.1 Notify action - I'd have expected an IANA registry that lists and fixes the methods and options and corresponding require: tags. Having these implementation-defined features without a way of verifying them makes me uneasy. Everything else in sieve is quite predictable; scripts as a whole either fail because they use unimplemented features or have well-defined meaning -- and here, all of a sudden, is this big, powerful, implementation-defined area that sends out messages that sometimes costs money without the author being able to automate verification that what they think a script means actually means it. - > The format of the notification is implementation-defined. > However, all content specified in the notify action, including Sieve > actions taken on the message, SHOULD be included. If I understand this correctly, you would like the notification to include a complete log of the sieve actions taken on the message, which goes beyond "the content specified in the notify action"; it would also include pieces of sieve script before and after the line that issues the notification. Right? - > If errors occurred in another action they SHOULD be reported > in the notification. And later: > Failures of other actions MAY be reported in the notification. This is in direct conflict with a rule in the sieve RFC 3028: > When an error occurs in a Sieve script, all processing stops. [2.10.6] Variables - I would like $env-from$ (and related variables, if you add them) defined with a reference to the sieve "envelope" operator, not to RFC 2?821. (The envelope used in sieve might not be an SMTP envelope.) - I strongly agree with the past discussion asking for more control over the formatting and over which parts are chosen. - In practice, I think limiting the length even of $from$ (and its related variables) and certainly of $subject$ would be a good thing. (Alternatively, allow implementation-defined limits on these things. ) When I have completely free hand, I tend to truncate single-line texts in the middle, like this: Subject: [mailing-list] This is a long ta ... cess and a frog. It would be nice to be allowed to do this, but it's kind of difficult to specify. (Maybe something is truncated in an implementation-defined manner to no more than N characters.) In response to July's discussion of whether this should be counting chars or bytes, for SMS, it only makes sense to count output bytes, not chars, since the limits one is trying to fit into are byte limits. 3.2 Denotify Action - This surprised me. Couldn't generic sieve control structures be used to accomplish the same with fewer constructs and thus a simpler language? I'd hate to see a precedent set where other, future extensions, in addition to their specified action, also include an action-specific cancellation mechanism! I don't really have much experience with this mechanism; maybe it's handy if you write a lot, and complex, sieve scripts. But this is supposed to be simple and small; I don't feel like this powerful mechanism fits that. Thanks!, Jutta Degener <jutta@sendmail.com> Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g0SGqaX12357 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:52:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.sendmail.com (toad-1635-17.dslbr.toad.net [162.33.201.17] (may be forged)) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0SGqY312352 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:52:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jutta@localhost) by localhost.sendmail.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g0SGpn609781 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:51:49 -0800 Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:51:49 -0800 From: Jutta Degener <jutta@sendmail.com> To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: draft-martin-sieve-notify-01.txt Message-ID: <20020128165149.GA9673@jutta.sendmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i 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! I've just read the sieve-notify-01 draft closely for the first time. Here are some questions and comments. Meta: - It has expired, and I notice that there were some discussions on the mailing list last July and a promise of a new version soon -- what is its status now? - The draft's header lists the title incorrectly as <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-01.txt>. 3.1 Notify action - I'd have expected an IANA registry that lists and fixes the methods and options and corresponding require: tags. Having these implementation-defined features without a way of verifying them makes me uneasy. Everything else in sieve is quite predictable; scripts as a whole either fail because they use unimplemented features or have well-defined meaning -- and here, all of a sudden, is this big, powerful, implementation-defined area that sends out messages that sometimes costs money without the author being able to automate verification that what they think a script means actually means it. - > The format of the notification is implementation-defined. > However, all content specified in the notify action, including Sieve > actions taken on the message, SHOULD be included. If I understand this correctly, you would like the notification to include a complete log of the sieve actions taken on the message, which goes beyond "the content specified in the notify action"; it would also include pieces of sieve script before and after the line that issues the notification. Right? - > If errors occurred in another action they SHOULD be reported > in the notification. And later: > Failures of other actions MAY be reported in the notification. This is in direct conflict with a rule in the sieve RFC 3028: > When an error occurs in a Sieve script, all processing stops. [2.10.6] Variables - I would like $env-from$ (and related variables, if you add them) defined with a reference to the sieve "envelope" operator, not to RFC 2?821. (The envelope used in sieve might not be an SMTP envelope.) - I strongly agree with the past discussion asking for more control over the formatting and over which parts are chosen. - In practice, I think limiting the length even of $from$ (and its related variables) and certainly of $subject$ would be a good thing. (Alternatively, allow implementation-defined limits on these things. ) When I have completely free hand, I tend to truncate single-line texts in the middle, like this: Subject: [mailing-list] This is a long ta ... cess and a frog. It would be nice to be allowed to do this, but it's kind of difficult to specify. (Maybe something is truncated in an implementation-defined manner to no more than N characters.) In response to July's discussion of whether this should be counting chars or bytes, for SMS, it only makes sense to count output bytes, not chars, since the limits one is trying to fit into are byte limits. 3.2 Denotify Action - This surprised me. Couldn't generic sieve control structures be used to accomplish the same with fewer constructs and thus a simpler language? I'd hate to see a precedent set where other, future extensions, in addition to their specified action, also include an action-specific cancellation mechanism! I don't really have much experience with this mechanism; maybe it's handy if you write a lot, and complex, sieve scripts. But this is supposed to be simple and small; I don't feel like this powerful mechanism fits that. Thanks!, Jutta Degener <jutta@sendmail.com>
- draft-martin-sieve-notify-01.txt Jutta Degener