Re: sieve: vacation extension
"Paul Falstad" <pf@Software.com> Mon, 24 November 1997 20:05 UTC
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id MAA08754 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 12:05:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hanoi.software.com ([207.175.94.227]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA08750 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 12:05:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hanoi.software.com ([127.0.0.0]) by hanoi.software.com (Post.Office MTA v3.199 release 123 ID# 105-123L0S0) with SMTP id AAA937; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 12:03:55 -0800
From: Paul Falstad <pf@Software.com>
Message-Id: <9711241203.ZM935@hanoi.software.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 12:03:55 -0800
In-Reply-To: Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@innosoft.com> "Re: sieve: vacation extension" (Nov 24, 10:13am)
References: <Pine.SOL.3.95.971120223936.24020B-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com> <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com> <"Re: sieve: vacation extension"@mail.proper.com> <01IQDUVCYK149LUYEY@INNOSOFT.COM>
X-Shakespearean-Insult: Thou reeky toad-spotted harpy!
Reply-To: Paul Falstad <Paul.Falstad@Software.com>
X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 24feb96 Caldera)
To: Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@innosoft.com>
Subject: Re: sieve: vacation extension
Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org
Precedence: bulk
Ned Freed says: | Subject: Re: sieve: vacation extension | > | Subject: Re: sieve: vacation extension | > | Vacation has to respond to the MAIL FROM address or Return-Path address, | > | not to the Reply-To/From header. | | > Is that specified somewhere? RFC822 requires that automated replies go | > to the address in Reply-To:/From:. | | This "requirement" of RFC822 has long been understood to be an | _extremely_ bad idea. Ok. It does seem like a bad idea, especially when mailing lists are taken into consideration. | and I believe the revised SMTP document makes it clear that | automatic notices should always be sent to the MAIL FROM address. I couldn't find that, but maybe I wasn't looking hard enough. draft-ietf-drums-kre-reply-to-00.txt adds to my confusion by stating: One way to avoid the seeming inconsistency of these examples is to note that the "use Reply-To instead of From" rule is intended to apply only to "automatic replies", and that for replies generated by humans, the address choice should generally be left to the human. See RFC822 section 4.4.4. But it appears that that particular draft is just a proposed addition to another draft.. We had a customer once who yelled at us because our autoreplier (which was replying to MAIL FROM) wasn't following the RFC's. So it would be nice to have this made crystal clear in the standards. -- Paul Falstad Software.com, Inc. paul.falstad@software.com 805-957-1790 x520 http://www.ttinet.com/pjf/ http://www.software.com/ Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id MAA08754 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 12:05:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from hanoi.software.com ([207.175.94.227]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA08750 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 12:05:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from hanoi.software.com ([127.0.0.0]) by hanoi.software.com (Post.Office MTA v3.199 release 123 ID# 105-123L0S0) with SMTP id AAA937; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 12:03:55 -0800 From: "Paul Falstad" <pf@Software.com> Message-Id: <9711241203.ZM935@hanoi.software.com> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 12:03:55 -0800 In-Reply-To: Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@innosoft.com> "Re: sieve: vacation extension" (Nov 24, 10:13am) References: <Pine.SOL.3.95.971120223936.24020B-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com> <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com> <"Re: sieve: vacation extension"@mail.proper.com> <01IQDUVCYK149LUYEY@INNOSOFT.COM> X-Shakespearean-Insult: Thou reeky toad-spotted harpy! Reply-To: Paul Falstad <Paul.Falstad@Software.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 24feb96 Caldera) To: Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@innosoft.com> Subject: Re: sieve: vacation extension Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Ned Freed says: | Subject: Re: sieve: vacation extension | > | Subject: Re: sieve: vacation extension | > | Vacation has to respond to the MAIL FROM address or Return-Path address, | > | not to the Reply-To/From header. | | > Is that specified somewhere? RFC822 requires that automated replies go | > to the address in Reply-To:/From:. | | This "requirement" of RFC822 has long been understood to be an | _extremely_ bad idea. Ok. It does seem like a bad idea, especially when mailing lists are taken into consideration. | and I believe the revised SMTP document makes it clear that | automatic notices should always be sent to the MAIL FROM address. I couldn't find that, but maybe I wasn't looking hard enough. draft-ietf-drums-kre-reply-to-00.txt adds to my confusion by stating: One way to avoid the seeming inconsistency of these examples is to note that the "use Reply-To instead of From" rule is intended to apply only to "automatic replies", and that for replies generated by humans, the address choice should generally be left to the human. See RFC822 section 4.4.4. But it appears that that particular draft is just a proposed addition to another draft.. We had a customer once who yelled at us because our autoreplier (which was replying to MAIL FROM) wasn't following the RFC's. So it would be nice to have this made crystal clear in the standards. -- Paul Falstad Software.com, Inc. paul.falstad@software.com 805-957-1790 x520 http://www.ttinet.com/pjf/ http://www.software.com/ Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id KAA07129 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:23:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from THOR.INNOSOFT.COM (SYSTEM@THOR.INNOSOFT.COM [192.160.253.66]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA07125 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:23:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from INNOSOFT.COM by INNOSOFT.COM (PMDF V5.1-10 #8694) id <01IQBIIWSG9S9LUYEY@INNOSOFT.COM> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:23:57 PST Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:13:46 -0800 (PST) From: Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@innosoft.com> Subject: Re: sieve: vacation extension In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sun, 23 Nov 1997 21:54:08 -0800" <9711232154.ZM8173@hanoi.software.com> To: Paul Falstad <pf@Software.com> Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Message-id: <01IQDUVCYK149LUYEY@INNOSOFT.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <Pine.SOL.3.95.971120223936.24020B-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com> <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com> <"Re: sieve: vacation extension"@mail.proper.com> Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk > | Subject: Re: sieve: vacation extension > | Vacation has to respond to the MAIL FROM address or Return-Path address, > | not to the Reply-To/From header. > Is that specified somewhere? RFC822 requires that automated replies go > to the address in Reply-To:/From:. This "requirement" of RFC822 has long been understood to be an _extremely_ bad idea. It came about as a result of thinking of RFC822 in a vacuum, which isn't how RFC822 is really used. This statement is specifically overridden by RFC1123 in the case of failure notifications; RFC1123 should have made it clear that this applies to any form of automatic notification, but unfortunately did not do so, probably because at the time the similarities between all forms of automatic responses weren't well understood. RFC1891-4 make it clear that the MAIL FROM must be used for all types of notifications, and the only reason vacation notices aren't included in this set is that the WG could not reach consensus on various other aspects of them. The need for vacation notices to go to the MAIL FROM address was never in doubt, however. In any case, this RFC822 recommendation has been dropped from the revised version of the specification that the DRUMS WG has produced, and I believe the revised SMTP document makes it clear that automatic notices should always be sent to the MAIL FROM address. > But, the standard vacation program > replies to the MAIL FROM address, it looks like... Indeed it does, and this is a Good Thing. Ned Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id VAA27123 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 21:55:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from hanoi.software.com (sbsg-226.software.com [207.175.94.226]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA27119 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 21:55:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from hanoi.software.com ([127.0.0.0]) by hanoi.software.com (Post.Office MTA v3.199 release 123 ID# 105-123L0S0) with SMTP id AAA8175 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 21:54:09 -0800 From: "Paul Falstad" <pf@Software.com> Message-Id: <9711232154.ZM8173@hanoi.software.com> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 21:54:08 -0800 In-Reply-To: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com> "Re: sieve: vacation extension" (Nov 20, 10:51pm) References: <Pine.SOL.3.95.971120223936.24020B-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com> X-Shakespearean-Insult: Thou clouted full-gorged mammet! Reply-To: Paul Falstad <Paul.Falstad@Software.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 24feb96 Caldera) To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: sieve: vacation extension Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Chris Newman says: | Subject: Re: sieve: vacation extension | Vacation has to respond to the MAIL FROM address or Return-Path address, | not to the Reply-To/From header. Is that specified somewhere? RFC822 requires that automated replies go to the address in Reply-To:/From:. But, the standard vacation program replies to the MAIL FROM address, it looks like... -- Paul Falstad Software.com, Inc. paul.falstad@software.com 805-957-1790 x520 http://www.ttinet.com/pjf/ http://www.software.com/ Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id HAA19686 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 07:42:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA19682 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 07:41:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA28637 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 16:42:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34784F14.4EB3DB7B@twinspot.net> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 16:43:16 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics Operation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Possible vacation notice approaches (was: Re: sieve: vacation extension) References: <006M96@PICARD.3K.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Chris Bartram wrote: > Not so far off perhaps... If the vacation notices were wrapped in a standard > format (like the MDN/DSNs) then software could potentially handle such > notices automatically. At least, as long as an RFC is being developed for > vacation messages anyway, why not go ahead and dictate that the vacation > messages utilize one of the standardized notification formats?? I like your idea, let's see where this can lead us... I can see at least two approaches to handle incoming messages for vacated users. One is to delay final delivery at the MTA level and sending an appropriate "delayed" DSN, the other is to complete the final delivery and and send an appropriate "dispatched" MDN. In the case of a delayed final delivery the proposed vacation extension in Sieve is not useful since Sieve is intended to be applied at the point of final delivery. When the user have activated the vacation state on the maildrop, messages will not be finally delivered until end of the vacation period. What complications can this imply on the MTA level? For the user to gain access to the queued messages before end of the vacation period the vacation state have to be cancelled and possibly reinstated after having the queued messages delivered to the maildrop. Looking into the use of DSN for vacation notices raises some questions. Using Action:delayed seem to most appropriate in such an approach. The most appropriate status code seem to be 4.2.1 as taken from RFC 1893: 4.X.X Persistent Transient Failure X.2.X Mailbox Status X.2.1 Mailbox disabled, not accepting messages There seem to be no code for vacation, do we need to define such? Then we should try to communicate the duration of the vacation period. Is it sufficient to use the optional "Will-Retry-Until" header? Or one might want to use the "Diagnostic-Code" with type "vacation" (certainly not standard yet :) and a text argument containing meta information about the vacation. There is also the choice of using extension headers. Comments? Regarding the alternative approach of completing the final delivery and emitting an MDN as vacation notice, the following might do the trick: Disposition-action-mode = automatic-action Disposition-action-mode = MDN-sent-automatically Disposition-type = "dispatched" Disposition-modifier = "vacation" (or "x-vacation" until registered) Resulting in a complete disposition field as: Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically ; dispatched/x-vacation Comments? -- Tomas Fasth mailto:tomas.fasth@twinspot.net EuroNetics Operation telephone:+46-13-218-181 Mjärdevi Science Park cellular:+46-708-870-957 58330 Linköping, Sweden facsimile:+46-708-870-258 TwinSpot Network is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id QAA27607 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 16:16:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from PICARD.3K.COM (picard.3k.com [198.151.172.33]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA27602 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 16:16:24 -0800 (PST) From: "Chris Bartram" <RCB@3k.com> Organization: 3k Associates Reply-To: rcb@3k.com Message-Id: <006M96@PICARD.3K.COM> X-Mailer: NetMail/3000 [Version B.06 97/10/28] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:15:26 -0500 X-Hpdesk-Priority: 3 (Normal Priority) Subject: Re[2]: sieve: vacation extension To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk In <3476225F.A728CB91@twinspot.net> TOMAS.FASTH@TWINSPOT.NET writes: > > Chris Bartram wrote: > > > > > It might be reasonable to suggest that no repeat messages get sent as l> o > ong > > > as the "vacation" command/action is in effect. If it is changed/deleted> > -and- > > > added-back, then a new log is to be created > > > > I tend to agree with Chris B. about oneshot vacation notices. At least > > it allow side-stepping the issues he described. It seem to me that > > having a vacation notice repeated at some interval is more a function of > > the original sender's individual memory refresh rate (which may vary > > from time to time :) than anything else. > > > > Is there any strong arguments for having repeated vacation notices? > > > > A nice touch would be if the originator's MUA understood the vacation > > notice good enough to politely make a reminder during the vacation > > period each time the sender tries to submit another message. I guess > > it's only a dream of mine... Not so far off perhaps... If the vacation notices were wrapped in a standard format (like the MDN/DSNs) then software could potentially handle such notices automatically. At least, as long as an RFC is being developed for vacation messages anyway, why not go ahead and dictate that the vacation messages utilize one of the standardized notification formats?? -Chris Bartram Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id QAA27488 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 16:06:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA27484 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 16:06:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA23592 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 01:07:31 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3476225F.A728CB91@twinspot.net> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 01:07:59 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: sieve: vacation extension References: <006LYV@PICARD.3K.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Chris Bartram wrote: > It might be reasonable to suggest that no repeat messages get sent as long > as the "vacation" command/action is in effect. If it is changed/deleted-and- > added-back, then a new log is to be created I tend to agree with Chris B. about oneshot vacation notices. At least it allow side-stepping the issues he described. It seem to me that having a vacation notice repeated at some interval is more a function of the original sender's individual memory refresh rate (which may vary from time to time :) than anything else. Is there any strong arguments for having repeated vacation notices? A nice touch would be if the originator's MUA understood the vacation notice good enough to politely make a reminder during the vacation period each time the sender tries to submit another message. I guess it's only a dream of mine... -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Tel: +46-13-218-181 Cel: +46-708-870-957 Fax: +46-708-870-258 EuroNetics Operation, Mjärdevi Science Park, 58330 Linköping, Sweden (TwinSpot Network is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id NAA25516 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:50:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (CMU1.ACS.CMU.EDU [128.2.35.186]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA25511 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:50:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from nil.andrew.cmu.edu (NIL.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.232.95]) by cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA27122; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 16:49:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 16:49:50 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> To: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com> cc: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: sieve: vacation extension In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95.971120230749.24020D-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971121164324.15017F-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, Chris Newman wrote: > I understand the desire to protect users from their own stupidity, but I > really think this sort of check is better done in Sieve than in the > vacation extension itself. If we're assuming the majority of Sieve > scripts will be configured by MUAs, then the MUAs will probably get this > right if given proper guidance. Ok; I guess I'll make the change. I think it makes sense to ask clients that write scripts to try and write scripts in the following way: if header "from" matches ("tjs@andrew.cmu.edu" "tjs+*@andrew.cmu.edu") { vacation; } I guess I'm blurring vacation with some of the more defective autoresponders. With the changes you've suggested I guess even occasonial misfires will be okay. I might as well ask. I looked at the man page for Solaris vacation. Are there any others that I should check out, or is it really the same across Unix versions? Thanks... -- Tim Showalter tjs@andrew.cmu.edu Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id HAA18824 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 07:42:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from PICARD.3K.COM (picard.3k.com [198.151.172.33]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA18813 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 07:42:09 -0800 (PST) From: "Chris Bartram" <RCB@3k.com> Organization: 3k Associates Reply-To: rcb@3k.com Message-Id: <006LYV@PICARD.3K.COM> X-Mailer: NetMail/3000 [Version B.06 97/10/28] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:41:55 -0500 X-Hpdesk-Priority: 3 (Normal Priority) Subject: Re[2]: sieve: vacation extension To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk In <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971121015302.14538A-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> TJS@ANDREW.CMU.EDU writes: > On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, Chris Newman wrote: > > > You probably need a way to specify the delay between repeat notifications > > if it's not the default one week. I'm not sure how important this is. > > I'm going to have to add a general way of doing optional arguments to > commands, I think, so it's easier for extensions. There are a couple > commands in the draft that could benefit from this. It might be reasonable to suggest that no repeat messages get sent as long as the "vacation" command/action is in effect. If it is changed/deleted-and- added-back, then a new log is to be created After all, a good vacation message should report the time period you're not available for, and one of these per recipient should be plenty. I.e. if the vacation message reports; "I'll be on safari from November 1,1997 til May 12, 1998" I don't need to get a reminder of that once a week. As a side note; perhaps a "recommendation" in the spec that implementors "suggest" to users that they at LEAST provide a time period that they will be unavailable in every vacation message. Kind of a "Note to implementors". A "Sorry, I'm out of the office" message doesn't do much to help anyone. > > I suggest you drop the recipient check, but instead use Sieve to do the > > recipient check in examples. The Sieve interpreter may not know all the > > address forms for the script owner. > > I don't agree with this. I'm afraid if users try to configure vacation, > they'll blow it more times than they get it right. I don't think there's a need to worry about the recipient check; if the log ensures that ONLY ONE reply will ever be sent to a given return address, at most you'll get one looped message to each of your various address variations. It's probably alot easier just to deal with this than to worry about rules for figuring out if you're really on a recip list... That's never been doable in a reliable means anyway. As long as only one reply goes to any sender, you won't have loops, and that's the biggest problem you want to avoid with vacation programs (with the mailing list reply's being second, and you've addressed that one). Even on mail lists though, if you only ever send ONE reply, noone (usually) gets too upset... it's the bums that send vacation responses back to EVERY list posting that REALLY upset people! ;-) -Chris Bartram Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id XAA09141 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 23:09:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from THOR.INNOSOFT.COM (SYSTEM@THOR.INNOSOFT.COM [192.160.253.66]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA09136 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 23:09:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from eleanor.innosoft.com ("port 50607"@ELEANOR.INNOSOFT.COM) by INNOSOFT.COM (PMDF V5.1-10 #8694) with SMTP id <01IQ90FMILG69LV8KN@INNOSOFT.COM> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 23:09:05 PST Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 23:11:19 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com> Subject: Re: sieve: vacation extension In-reply-to: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971121015302.14538A-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> To: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> Cc: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Message-id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.971120230749.24020D-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Originator-Info: login-id=chris; server=thor.innosoft.com Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, Tim Showalter wrote: > > I suggest you drop the recipient check, but instead use Sieve to do the > > recipient check in examples. The Sieve interpreter may not know all the > > address forms for the script owner. > > I don't agree with this. I'm afraid if users try to configure vacation, > they'll blow it more times than they get it right. The alternative is to allow a way to configure a list of addresses which refer to the user running the script. As an example, my set is: <chris@innosoft.com> <chris+*@innosoft.com> <chris.newman@innosoft.com> <chris.newman+*@innosoft.com> I understand the desire to protect users from their own stupidity, but I really think this sort of check is better done in Sieve than in the vacation extension itself. If we're assuming the majority of Sieve scripts will be configured by MUAs, then the MUAs will probably get this right if given proper guidance. - Chris Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id WAA08911 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:54:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (CMU1.ACS.CMU.EDU [128.2.35.186]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA08907 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:54:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from nil.andrew.cmu.edu (NIL.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.232.95]) by cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA19993; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 01:55:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 01:55:33 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> To: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com> cc: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: sieve: vacation extension In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95.971120223936.24020B-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971121015302.14538A-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, Chris Newman wrote: > Vacation has to respond to the MAIL FROM address or Return-Path address, > not to the Reply-To/From header. Ok, will change this. > You probably need a way to specify the delay between repeat notifications > if it's not the default one week. I'm not sure how important this is. I'm going to have to add a general way of doing optional arguments to commands, I think, so it's easier for extensions. There are a couple commands in the draft that could benefit from this. > I suggest you drop the recipient check, but instead use Sieve to do the > recipient check in examples. The Sieve interpreter may not know all the > address forms for the script owner. I don't agree with this. I'm afraid if users try to configure vacation, they'll blow it more times than they get it right. > The man page on vacation does a good job explaining the services it > provides. It's fairly complete and well designed. Guess I need to stare at it some more ... thanks. -- Tim Showalter tjs@andrew.cmu.edu Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id WAA08823 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:49:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from THOR.INNOSOFT.COM (SYSTEM@THOR.INNOSOFT.COM [192.160.253.66]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA08819 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:48:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from eleanor.innosoft.com ("port 50592"@ELEANOR.INNOSOFT.COM) by INNOSOFT.COM (PMDF V5.1-10 #8694) with SMTP id <01IQ8ZPJO7XY9LV8KN@INNOSOFT.COM> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:48:50 PST Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:51:05 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com> Subject: Re: sieve: vacation extension In-reply-to: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971120204611.18160r-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> To: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> Cc: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Message-id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.971120223936.24020B-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Originator-Info: login-id=chris; server=thor.innosoft.com Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Vacation has to respond to the MAIL FROM address or Return-Path address, not to the Reply-To/From header. You probably need a way to specify the delay between repeat notifications if it's not the default one week. I'm not sure how important this is. I suggest you drop the recipient check, but instead use Sieve to do the recipient check in examples. The Sieve interpreter may not know all the address forms for the script owner. The man page on vacation does a good job explaining the services it provides. It's fairly complete and well designed. - Chris Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id RAA04688 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 17:55:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (CMU1.ACS.CMU.EDU [128.2.35.186]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA04683 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 17:55:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from nil.andrew.cmu.edu (NIL.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.232.95]) by cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA11034 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 20:56:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 20:56:22 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> To: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: sieve: vacation extension Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971120204611.18160r-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk I was asked to put together a vacation extension. I'm attaching it here since some didn't like the last draft I posted as base64-encoded MIME enclosure. I'll put a copy at http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~tjs/sieve-vacation.txt as well in case a mailer mangles it. It's six pages, but I wanted to try and get all the weird cases not to mail correct. This hasn't been submitted to the Internet-Drafts repository because I'm not sure it's quite right; I'll probably do it tomorrow after the first round of nits. Hope this helps -- thanks... -- Tim Showalter tjs@andrew.cmu.edu Network Working Group T. Showalter Internet Draft: Sieve Vacation Carnegie Mellon Document: draft-showalter-sieve-vacation-00beta.txt November 1997 Expire in six months (31 May 1998) Sieve -- Vacation Extension Status of this memo This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.'' To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), ftp.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). The protocol discussed in this document is experimental and subject to change. Persons planning on either implementing or using this protocol are STRONGLY URGED to get in touch with the author before embarking on such a project. Abstract This document describes an extension to the Sieve mail filtering language for an autoresponder similar to that of the Unix "vacation" command. The extension is offered in the hopes of making frequently used commands availible (and discouraging users from implementing it themselves). Showalter Expires 31-May-1997 [Page 1] Internet DRAFT Sieve -- Vacation November 20, 1997 0. Meta-information on this draft This information is intended to facilitate discussion. It will be removed when this document leaves the Internet-Draft stage. 0.1. Discussion This draft is intended to be compared with the Sieve mail filtering language, an internet-draft being discussed on the MTA Filters mailing list at <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>. Subscription requests can be sent to <ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org> (send an email message with the word "subscribe" in the body). More information on the mailing list along with a WWW archive of back messages is available at <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters>. 1. Introduction This is an extension to the Sieve language defined by [SIEVE] for notification that messages will not be immediately answered. Conventions for notations are as in [SIEVE] section 1.1, including use of [KEYWORDS]. 2. Capability identifier Sieve implementations that implement vacation have an identifier of "VACATION" for use with the capability mechanism (i.e., "support"). 3. Vacation Action Syntax: vacation <reason-string> The "vacation" action implements a vacation autoresponder similar to the one availible under many versions of UNIX. Its purpose is to provide correspondants with notification that the user is away for an extended period of time and that they should not expect quick responses. Vacation is similar to reply as defined in [SIEVE]. There are a few differences: First, "vacation" SHOULD NOT respond to a message sent from the user's address. Therefore, the Sieve implementation should know what the user's address is. If the user has more than one address for a given site, all addresses should also not get a reply message. Second, "vacation" MUST NOT reply to mail from "postmaster" or any Showalter Expires 31-May-1997 [Page 4] Internet DRAFT Sieve -- Vacation November 20, 1997 other address where the left-hand side ends in "-request" (that is, a mailing list administrative address). Third, "vacation" MUST NOT reply to a message that does not list the users' address in the "To:" or "Cc:" header. The intention is that mail to a mailing list that the user is subscribed to should never get a "vacation" response. Finally, "vacation" MUST keep track of all of the addresses that it has responded to in the past seven (7) days and MUST NOT respond to them a second time within this period. The "vacation" action may send out notifications less frequently, but should not send them out more frequently. The simplest way to use vacation is just this: Example: vacation "I'm away until Octber 19. If it's an emergency, call 911, I guess." ; By mingling vacation with other rules, users can do something more selective. Example: if header "from" contains "boss@frobnitzm.edu" { forward "pleeb@xanadu.wv.us"; } else { vacation "Sorry, I'm away, I'll read your message when I get around to it."; } 4. Formal Grammar The grammar used in this section is the same as the ABNF described in [ABNF]. action =/ vacation ;; "vacation" is now a legal action vacation = vacation WSP string 5. Author's Address Tim Showalter Carnegie Mellon University 5000 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15213 E-Mail: tjs@andrew.cmu.edu Showalter Expires 31-May-1997 [Page 5] Internet DRAFT Sieve -- Vacation November 20, 1997 Appendices Appendix A. References [ABNF] Crocker, D., "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", Internet Mail Consortium, RFC 2234, November, 1997. [KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, Harvard University, March 1997. [SIEVE] Showalter, T. "Sieve: A Mail Filtering Language", Carenegie Mellon, Work in Progress. Showalter Expires 31-May-1997 [Page 6] Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id OAA01883 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:46:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from deptvamc2-bh.va.gov (deptvachi-bh.va.gov [205.183.31.66]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA01877 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:46:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by deptvamc2-bh.va.gov (8.6.12/8.6.11) id KAA16729 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:37:56 -0600 Received: from 152.129.1.6 by deptvamc2-bh.va.gov via smap (3.2) id xmab15577; Thu, 20 Nov 97 10:36:29 -0600 Received: by vhaishhbexc1.med.va.gov with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.995.52) id <01BCF5A0.C2AA89A0@vhaishhbexc1.med.va.gov>; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:40:46 -0600 Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=VA%l=VHAISFHBEXC1-971119184715Z-6426@vhaishhbexc1.med.va.gov> From: "Woodhouse, Gregory J." <gregory.woodhouse@med.va.gov> To: "'ietf-mta-filters@imc.org'" <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>, "'Tomas Fasth'" <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Subject: RE: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:47:15 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.995.52 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Actually, RFC 822 (at least) never says "Return-Path" is required, but=20 the revised document being developed by DRUMS reads: When the delivery SMTP server makes the "final delivery" of a message,=20 it inserts a return-path line at the beginning of the mail data. This=20 use of return-path is required; mail systems MUST support it. The=20 return-path line preserves the information in the <reverse-path> from=20 the MAIL command. Here, final delivery means the message has left the=20 SMTP world. Normally, this would mean it had been delivered to the=20 destination user or an associated mail drop, but in some cases it may=20 be further processed and transmitted by another mail system. =3D=3D=3D Gregory Woodhouse San Francisco CIO Field Office - Infrastructure gregory.woodhouse@med.va.gov +1 415 744 6362 / May the dromedary be with you ---------- From: Tomas Fasth [SMTP:tomas.fasth@twinspot.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 8:07 AM To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) Chris Newman wrote: > This is incorrect. UAs will have access to the "MAIL FROM" address=20 unless > an upstream system violated Internet standards. The final delivery=20 agent > is REQUIRED to copy the "MAIL FROM" address into the "Return-Path" > header. Anything which doesn't is broken. Chris, can you give us the exact location in an RFC that backs up your=20 assertion? I'm not sure it is required and I'm not sure you can ever=20 rely on it's existence once the message have moved into the domain of=20 the MUA. If you're right, my FreeBSD "out-of-the-box" installation is certainly=20 broken. The "P" flag required to generate the Return-Path header is=20 _not_ set for the local mailer by default. I don't know why, but the=20 very existence of this discrepency (the fact that it's optional) is=20 enough for me to maintain that this header might not always be=20 available. Period. [...] -- H=E4lsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Tel: +46-13-218-181 Cel: +46-708-870-957 Fax: +46-708-870-258=20 EuroNetics Operation, Mj=E4rdevi Science Park, 58330 Link=F6ping, Sweden = (TwinSpot Network is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id OAA01151 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:05:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from THOR.INNOSOFT.COM (SYSTEM@THOR.INNOSOFT.COM [192.160.253.66]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA01146 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:05:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from eleanor.innosoft.com ("port 47163"@ELEANOR.INNOSOFT.COM) by INNOSOFT.COM (PMDF V5.1-10 #8694) with SMTP id <01IQ8HF57Y069LV8O0@INNOSOFT.COM> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:05:03 PST Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:07:17 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com> Subject: Re: Why bounce/reject is necessary In-reply-to: <3472F253.33D3AC1B@twinspot.net> To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Message-id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.971120140000.20490M-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Originator-Info: login-id=chris; server=thor.innosoft.com Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Tomas Fasth wrote: > Chris Newman wrote: > > (1) Change of address. > Hmm. This is certainly a service we have wanted in MTAs for a long time. > What I don't understand is why this would be solved within the domain of > message filtering? Suppose I'm a sales representative and some of my customers are reassigned to a new sales representative, but my old address remains the same for other correspondence. Any action which might be conditional on the from/sender is fair game for Sieve. - Chris Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id EAA22631 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 04:33:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA22627 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 04:33:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA19743 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 13:34:44 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34742E7C.B704A4C6@twinspot.net> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 13:35:08 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) References: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971119153439.18160W-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Tim Showalter wrote: > Sure. What would be more appropriate? If you're going to refuse messages, > then you're really going to refuse messages. If you don't want to refuse > messages, don't refuse messages. What's the problem? You're right, I'll take that back. > What you're saying is that if A sends B a mesasge, and B sets up his mailer > to reject A's messages, and A sets up his mailer to reject B's rejects, that > A is likely to keep sending mail to B in the hopes that his mailer will > somehow change its behavior. I think this is absurd. It is. I'm sorry, it has been a bad day. I redraw. -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Tel: +46-13-218-181 Cel: +46-708-870-957 Fax: +46-708-870-258 EuroNetics Operation, Mjärdevi Science Park, 58330 Linköping, Sweden (TwinSpot Network is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id EAA22393 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 04:13:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA22388 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 04:12:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA19721 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 13:13:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3474299A.8F3A0A68@twinspot.net> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 13:14:18 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) References: <199711191410.5134448.6@mail.hethmon.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Paul Hethmon wrote: > RFC 1123 Section 5.2.8: > > When the receiver-SMTP makes "final delivery" of a message, > then it MUST pass the MAIL FROM: address from the SMTP envelope > with the message, for use if an error notification message must > be sent later (see Section 5.3.3). There is an analogous > requirement when gatewaying from the Internet into a different > mail environment; see Section 5.3.7. Thanks. I redraw my objection. -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Tel: +46-13-218-181 Cel: +46-708-870-957 Fax: +46-708-870-258 EuroNetics Operation, Mjärdevi Science Park, 58330 Linköping, Sweden (TwinSpot Network is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id MAA11202 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:43:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (CMU1.ACS.CMU.EDU [128.2.35.186]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA11198 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:43:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from nil.andrew.cmu.edu (NIL.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.232.95]) by cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA00420 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:44:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:44:41 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> To: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) In-Reply-To: <34730E89.7E2BE79@twinspot.net> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971119153439.18160W-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Tomas Fasth wrote: > > > * even those that do will have to know to ignore (obviously) empty > > > MAIL FROM addresses - so do implementations that support this action > > > need exception handlers to deal with an invalid return address? Or > > > simply silently disregard them? > > > > This is already defined in the standards. DSNs are not sent if there is > > an empty "MAIL FROM" address, so "reject" would be equivlent to "discard" > > in this case. > > Ouch. Are you suggesting that the transfer from reject to discard would > be > done silently without giving a chance to the scripter to do something > else? Sure. What would be more appropriate? If you're going to refuse messages, then you're really going to refuse messages. If you don't want to refuse messages, don't refuse messages. What's the problem? > > Agreed. But Sieve is designed for much more than just > > UCE/UBE/SPAM/whatever. See my previous message for why a "bounce/reject" > > action provides vital functionality. > > Don't you think an automatic repetitive reject (whatever cause) can be > regarded as a kind of spam? No, it's not spam in any sense of the word -- it's not unsolicited. > What guarantee do you have that the receiver > of the delivery rejection notification know how to handle such a message? What do you intend by this? How can someone not be ready to handle a bounce message? > If the traffic is fluent, s/he might instead (wrongly but possibly) > decide > to order his filtering device to reject such stream of junk mail which, > as > you decribed above, might result in a silent discard because the lack of > an originator address. Good. > We now have a stream of messages taking up network resources and with no > other purpose than using brute force (using automating tools) to > convince > a fellow netizen to stop sending messages. Some might regard that as > spamming as well. They would be wrong for all of the reasons described above. What you're saying is that if A sends B a mesasge, and B sets up his mailer to reject A's messages, and A sets up his mailer to reject B's rejects, that A is likely to keep sending mail to B in the hopes that his mailer will somehow change its behavior. I think this is absurd. -- Tim Showalter tjs@andrew.cmu.edu Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id LAA09772 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:09:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.hethmon.com (mail.hethmon.com [208.147.156.6]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA09768 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:09:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from sambo.ag.utk.edu ( [128.169.14.43] ) by mail.hethmon.com (Hethmon Brothers Smtpd) ; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:10:51 -0500 Message-Id: <199711191410.5134448.6@mail.hethmon.com> To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Post Road Mailer for OS/2 (Green Edition Ver 3.0) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:11:04 -0500 From: Paul Hethmon <phethmon@hethmon.com> Reply-To: Paul Hethmon <phethmon@hethmon.com> Subject: Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk ** Reply to note from Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Wed, 19 Nov 19= 97 17:06:33 +0100 > > This is incorrect. UAs will have access to the "MAIL FROM" address unl= ess > > an upstream system violated Internet standards. The final delivery age= nt > > is REQUIRED to copy the "MAIL FROM" address into the "Return-Path" > > header. Anything which doesn't is broken. > > Chris, can you give us the exact location in an RFC that backs up your > assertion? I'm not sure it is required and I'm not sure you can ever > rely > on it's existence once the message have moved into the domain of the > MUA. > > If you're right, my FreeBSD "out-of-the-box" installation is certainly > broken. The "P" flag required to generate the Return-Path header is > _not_ > set for the local mailer by default. I don't know why, but the very > existence of this discrepency (the fact that it's optional) is enough > for > me to maintain that this header might not always be available. Period. RFC 1123 Section 5.2.8: When the receiver-SMTP makes "final delivery" of a message, then it MUST pass the MAIL FROM: address from the SMTP envelope with the message, for use if an error notification message must be sent later (see Section 5.3.3). There is an analogous requirement when gatewaying from the Internet into a different mail environment; see Section 5.3.7. DISCUSSION: Note that the final reply to the DATA command depends only upon the successful transfer and storage of the message. Any problem with the destination address(es) must either (1) have been reported in an SMTP error reply to the RCPT command(s), or (2) be reported in a later error message mailed to the originator. IMPLEMENTATION: The MAIL FROM: information may be passed as a parameter or in a Return-Path: line inserted at the beginning of the message. Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Position Announcement: Needed hardworking person with organizational skills, devotion to OS/2, plenty of spare time. No pay, no benefits. Apply by self-nomination :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Hethmon phethmon@hethmon.com Inet.Mail Internet Mail Server http://www.hethmon.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author "Illustrated Guide to HTTP" http://www.browsebooks.com/Hethmon?882 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Warpstock -- Tune In! & Warp Out! -- http://www.warpstock.org Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id KAA09611 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:55:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (CMU1.ACS.CMU.EDU [128.2.35.186]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA09606 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:55:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from nil.andrew.cmu.edu (NIL.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.232.95]) by cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA23807 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:56:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:56:25 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> To: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: Example extension action In-Reply-To: <34731088.146B736A@twinspot.net> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971119135502.18160U-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Tomas Fasth wrote: > Tim Showalter wrote: > > > The only problem I can see is that in IMAP messages are essentially > > immutable so that once the delivery agent had written to the message > > store, it's never gonna change. > > I don't regard this as a problem but a feature. > If you want to change the content of a message, including it's headers, > you have to make a copy, making your changes in that copy and store it > in the same place, probably also deleting the original message. > By being forced to do it this way, you are not breaking any cached > messages in MUAs running in disconnected mode (have those creatures > been invented yet by the way?). Ok; it was the only worry I had about modifying headers in the filtering agent. I withdraw it. -- Tim Showalter tjs@andrew.cmu.edu Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id IAA07358 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:32:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA07353 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:32:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA18363 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:33:08 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <347314DB.A95610EC@twinspot.net> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:33:31 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-mta-filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Why not notify instead? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Instead of using bounce/reject, which could be seen as one among several notifications, you could instead define a notify command in Sieve. The notify command would then encapsulate all notifications including address change, denial of delivery and such. Like this: if header "from" contains "enemy" { notify-originator delivery-denied "Keep your messages to yourself!"; } -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Tel: +46-13-218-181 Cel: +46-708-870-957 Fax: +46-708-870-258 EuroNetics Operation, Mjärdevi Science Park, 58330 Linköping, Sweden (TwinSpot Network is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id IAA07045 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:13:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA07039 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:13:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA18231 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:14:41 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34731088.146B736A@twinspot.net> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:15:04 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: Example extension action References: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971118152509.16925C-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Tim Showalter wrote: > The only problem I can see is that in IMAP messages are essentially > immutable so that once the delivery agent had written to the message > store, it's never gonna change. I don't regard this as a problem but a feature. If you want to change the content of a message, including it's headers, you have to make a copy, making your changes in that copy and store it in the same place, probably also deleting the original message. By being forced to do it this way, you are not breaking any cached messages in MUAs running in disconnected mode (have those creatures been invented yet by the way?). -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Tel: +46-13-218-181 Cel: +46-708-870-957 Fax: +46-708-870-258 EuroNetics Operation, Mjärdevi Science Park, 58330 Linköping, Sweden (TwinSpot Network is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id IAA06922 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:05:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA06918 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:05:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA18186 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:06:11 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34730E89.7E2BE79@twinspot.net> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:06:33 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) References: <Pine.SOL.3.95.971117142905.18309P-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Chris Newman wrote: > This is incorrect. UAs will have access to the "MAIL FROM" address unless > an upstream system violated Internet standards. The final delivery agent > is REQUIRED to copy the "MAIL FROM" address into the "Return-Path" > header. Anything which doesn't is broken. Chris, can you give us the exact location in an RFC that backs up your assertion? I'm not sure it is required and I'm not sure you can ever rely on it's existence once the message have moved into the domain of the MUA. If you're right, my FreeBSD "out-of-the-box" installation is certainly broken. The "P" flag required to generate the Return-Path header is _not_ set for the local mailer by default. I don't know why, but the very existence of this discrepency (the fact that it's optional) is enough for me to maintain that this header might not always be available. Period. > > * even those that do will have to know to ignore (obviously) empty > > MAIL FROM addresses - so do implementations that support this action > > need exception handlers to deal with an invalid return address? Or > > simply silently disregard them? > > This is already defined in the standards. DSNs are not sent if there is > an empty "MAIL FROM" address, so "reject" would be equivlent to "discard" > in this case. Ouch. Are you suggesting that the transfer from reject to discard would be done silently without giving a chance to the scripter to do something else? > Agreed. But Sieve is designed for much more than just > UCE/UBE/SPAM/whatever. See my previous message for why a "bounce/reject" > action provides vital functionality. Don't you think an automatic repetitive reject (whatever cause) can be regarded as a kind of spam? What guarantee do you have that the receiver of the delivery rejection notification know how to handle such a message? If the traffic is fluent, s/he might instead (wrongly but possibly) decide to order his filtering device to reject such stream of junk mail which, as you decribed above, might result in a silent discard because the lack of an originator address. We now have a stream of messages taking up network resources and with no other purpose than using brute force (using automating tools) to convince a fellow netizen to stop sending messages. Some might regard that as spamming as well. My point is; when demanding new and powerful functionality in a tool that will become available to average end users, you should at least consider the side (and less wanted) effects and consequences before having it implemented. Just because it seem like a cool feature, it does not necessary equal to a useful one. Especially if you mix features from different problem domains in the same implementation entity. That is only going to cause trouble. -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Tel: +46-13-218-181 Cel: +46-708-870-957 Fax: +46-708-870-258 EuroNetics Operation, Mjärdevi Science Park, 58330 Linköping, Sweden (TwinSpot Network is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id HAA06156 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:15:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA06150 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:15:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA18053 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:16:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <347302CD.2EF2DF0@twinspot.net> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:16:29 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Example extension action References: <Pine.SOL.3.95.971117141156.18309O-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Chris Newman wrote: > If the message has a "Disposition-Notification-To" header which matches > the envelope sender, then this will send an "automatic-ation", > "MDN-sent-automatically", "denied" MDN notification and remove the > "Disposition-Notification-To" header from the message. Nice thinking, Chris. However, it seem to me quite counter-productive to do a thing like that. When we finally can see MUAs arriving on the market that supports MDN (we aren't there quite yet) you start providing not only tools that nullifies those developments, but also automates MDN submission on behalf of the user for each message containing the D-N-T header? Also, as I mentioned in another letter, I am leaning towards the position that MTAs should keep hands off MDNs and leave such handling to the MUA. If your MUA is not supporting MDNs, then why not just ignore such requests? A question: Should MTA and MUA responsibilities be mixed up in a single tool like a Sieve interpreter? > The interesting question is: are Sieve scripts allowed to edit the headers > of a message? I hope not. Otherwise, you will easily end up with a situation similar to sendmail installations, where you easily loose control over what headers are rewritten (or deleted, help me ***) and why. Frankly, I don't understand why a filtering language should be able to rewrite message headers at all? Morphing filtering tools into censoring tools have bad vibrations. -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Tel: +46-13-218-181 Cel: +46-708-870-957 Fax: +46-708-870-258 EuroNetics Operation, Mjärdevi Science Park, 58330 Linköping, Sweden (TwinSpot Network is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id GAA05223 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 06:04:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA05219 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 06:04:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA17972 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:05:49 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3472F253.33D3AC1B@twinspot.net> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:06:11 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Why bounce/reject is necessary References: <Pine.SOL.3.95.971117140120.18309N-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Chris Newman wrote: > > The crucial difference between bounce/reject and reply is that the > envelope sender is used. There are two cases where it is very important > to use that rather than the reply-to/from header: > > (1) Change of address. Hmm. This is certainly a service we have wanted in MTAs for a long time. What I don't understand is why this would be solved within the domain of message filtering? In a sense the mail account might not exist anymore, therefore the need to notify about an address change in the first place. It might not be appropriate to apply a filter at all, because the maildrop have ceased to exist. Therefore I do not consider the need to notify a change of address as a valid argument for making reject mandatory. > (2) Rejecting a mailing list which won't unsubscribe you. Great. Just because most MUAs don't give the user a choice of sending replies to the MAIL FROM address, you now mandate an automatic junk duplicator. I am maintaining my position that automation of junk mail rejection (== traffic duplicator) is not a good solution to that kind of a problem. Discard isn't either, but not as bad. > In either of these cases a "reply" function is actually the wrong thing to > do, as it would go to the author of the message rather than the mailing > list owner. I agree. > So I think bounce/reject is critical functionality in Sieve and is > important independent of reply. I think not. It should at least not be mandatory. > I also think it should use DSN syntax. I'm looking forward to the day > when MUAs can automatically associate DSNs and MDNs with the messages that > generated them. I can agree with that. Thinking about it, MDNs have properties that are better suited to be integrated in the MUA overall funtionality, not in a filtering language. -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Tel: +46-13-218-181 Cel: +46-708-870-957 Fax: +46-708-870-258 EuroNetics Operation, Mjärdevi Science Park, 58330 Linköping, Sweden (TwinSpot Network is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id MAA22133 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:58:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (CMU1.ACS.CMU.EDU [128.2.35.186]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA22129 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:58:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from nil.andrew.cmu.edu (NIL.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.232.95]) by cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA11529; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:59:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:59:12 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> To: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com> cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Why bounce/reject is necessary In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95.971117140120.18309N-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971118155818.16925D-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, Chris Newman wrote: > I also think it should use DSN syntax. I'm looking forward to the day > when MUAs can automatically associate DSNs and MDNs with the messages that > generated them. Ok, the draft says DSN syntax. I'll try to release another draft in the next day or two, mostly so that the expiration date is correct. Should it say SHOULD or MUST? -- Tim Showalter tjs@andrew.cmu.edu Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id MAA22116 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:57:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (CMU1.ACS.CMU.EDU [128.2.35.186]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA22109 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:57:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from nil.andrew.cmu.edu (NIL.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.232.95]) by cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA11456 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:58:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:58:08 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> To: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: Example extension action In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95.971117141156.18309O-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971118152509.16925C-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, Chris Newman wrote: > Here's an example extension action that raises an interesting question: > > The action is called "denyMDN". Based on: draft-ietf-receipt-mdn-06.txt > > If the message has a "Disposition-Notification-To" header which matches > the envelope sender, then this will send an "automatic-ation", > "MDN-sent-automatically", "denied" MDN notification and remove the > "Disposition-Notification-To" header from the message. > > The interesting question is: are Sieve scripts allowed to edit the headers > of a message? Sure, why not? The only problem I can see is that in IMAP messages are essentially immutable so that once the delivery agent had written to the message store, it's never gonna change. -- Tim Showalter tjs@andrew.cmu.edu Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id OAA05360 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:35:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from THOR.INNOSOFT.COM (SYSTEM@THOR.INNOSOFT.COM [192.160.253.66]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA05353 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:34:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from eleanor.innosoft.com ("port 50216"@ELEANOR.INNOSOFT.COM) by INNOSOFT.COM (PMDF V5.1-10 #8694) with SMTP id <01IQ4BKSY1LC9LV487@INNOSOFT.COM> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:34:39 PST Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:36:52 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com> Subject: Re: Re[2]: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) In-reply-to: <006DSR@PICARD.3K.COM> To: Chris Bartram <RCB@3k.com> Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Message-id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.971117142905.18309P-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Originator-Info: login-id=chris; server=thor.innosoft.com Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Chris Bartram wrote: > * most UAs will not have access to the SMTP "MAIL FROM" address anyway, > which is where DSNs are *supposed* to go This is incorrect. UAs will have access to the "MAIL FROM" address unless an upstream system violated Internet standards. The final delivery agent is REQUIRED to copy the "MAIL FROM" address into the "Return-Path" header. Anything which doesn't is broken. > * even those that do will have to know to ignore (obviously) empty > MAIL FROM addresses - so do implementations that support this action > need exception handlers to deal with an invalid return address? Or > simply silently disregard them? This is already defined in the standards. DSNs are not sent if there is an empty "MAIL FROM" address, so "reject" would be equivlent to "discard" in this case. > * using this action in response to a UCE/SPAM message will almost NEVER > be useful, and in most cases will make the problem/impact worse Agreed. But Sieve is designed for much more than just UCE/UBE/SPAM/whatever. See my previous message for why a "bounce/reject" action provides vital functionality. - Chris Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id OAA05225 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:23:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from THOR.INNOSOFT.COM (SYSTEM@THOR.INNOSOFT.COM [192.160.253.66]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA05221 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:23:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from eleanor.innosoft.com ("port 50165"@ELEANOR.INNOSOFT.COM) by INNOSOFT.COM (PMDF V5.1-10 #8694) with SMTP id <01IQ4B7HYD6W9LV487@INNOSOFT.COM> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:23:55 PST Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:26:08 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com> Subject: Example extension action To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Message-id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.971117141156.18309O-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Originator-Info: login-id=chris; server=thor.innosoft.com Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Here's an example extension action that raises an interesting question: The action is called "denyMDN". Based on: draft-ietf-receipt-mdn-06.txt If the message has a "Disposition-Notification-To" header which matches the envelope sender, then this will send an "automatic-ation", "MDN-sent-automatically", "denied" MDN notification and remove the "Disposition-Notification-To" header from the message. The interesting question is: are Sieve scripts allowed to edit the headers of a message? - Chris Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id OAA05033 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:09:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from THOR.INNOSOFT.COM (SYSTEM@THOR.INNOSOFT.COM [192.160.253.66]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA05025 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:09:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from eleanor.innosoft.com ("port 50164"@ELEANOR.INNOSOFT.COM) by INNOSOFT.COM (PMDF V5.1-10 #8694) with SMTP id <01IQ4APOD3PS9LV487@INNOSOFT.COM> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:09:33 PST Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:11:46 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com> Subject: Why bounce/reject is necessary To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Message-id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.971117140120.18309N-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Originator-Info: login-id=chris; server=thor.innosoft.com Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk The crucial difference between bounce/reject and reply is that the envelope sender is used. There are two cases where it is very important to use that rather than the reply-to/from header: (1) Change of address. (2) Rejecting a mailing list which won't unsubscribe you. In either of these cases a "reply" function is actually the wrong thing to do, as it would go to the author of the message rather than the mailing list owner. So I think bounce/reject is critical functionality in Sieve and is important independent of reply. I also think it should use DSN syntax. I'm looking forward to the day when MUAs can automatically associate DSNs and MDNs with the messages that generated them. - Chris P.S. I think it's pointless to argue at what point Sieve is executed. As long as we know what objects it operates on, its function is well defined. Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id JAA25153 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:20:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from po10.andrew.cmu.edu (PO10.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.10.110]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA25149 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:20:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from postman@localhost) by po10.andrew.cmu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.2) id MAA01393 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:20:03 -0500 (EST) Received: via switchmail; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:20:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from loiosh.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/testq0/QF.0oMTkN200WC700ZUE0>; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:19:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from loiosh.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr17/rob/.Outgoing/QF.0oMTkF200WC7080qI0>; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:19:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from BatMail.robin.v2.14.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.loiosh.andrew.cmu.edu.HP9000.715 via MS.5.6.loiosh.andrew.cmu.edu.hp700; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:19:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0oMTk7200WC7080q80@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:19:03 -0500 (EST) From: Rob Earhart <earhart+@cmu.edu> To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: {} in if/else In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971106012624.4242D-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> References: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971106012624.4242D-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> X-Face: ,IWr.&S`]#R'C+7U:UE~"}g?Zq|OE%6.\}jCwGUO)]|?34%u!8RT_@0"_qA\@g8N:'pK!bM tSE)?S,#@MK1$o(69wQT2L'j)8tP5QfHdYlh`k}:tA"%dG?9z~> Beak: Is Not Organization: cmu X-URL: http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~rob Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: > What happens in this script -- > > if false keep; else if false fileinto "foo"; else trash trash. You only run into ambiguities if you can write things like if false if false fileinto "foo"; else trash where it's not clear which "if" the else belongs to. (The problem is that if-then-else is hard to specify unambiguously in a context-free grammar (although it's certainly possible). In practice, though, it tends to work fine - yacc, for instance, will complain about the shift/reduce conflict, but will default to shifting the else token, which is exactly what should happen.) )Rob Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id WAA15384 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 22:29:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (CMU1.ACS.CMU.EDU [128.2.35.186]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA15378 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 22:29:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from nil.andrew.cmu.edu (NIL.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.232.95]) by cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA21715; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 01:29:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 01:29:12 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> To: Chris Bartram <RCB@3k.com> cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: {} in if/else In-Reply-To: <006DSQ@PICARD.3K.COM> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971106012624.4242D-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Chris Bartram wrote: > In <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971105160232.27664f-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> TJS@ANDREW.CMU.EDU writes: > > > So can I change the grammar to require the braces around commands in an > > if/else? > > > > That is, > > if true keep; > > > > wouldn't be legal; you'd need > > if true { keep; } > > Why??? Because it's slightly easier to parse. Actually, I need to deal with an ambiguity in the grammar with regards to this. What happens in this script -- if false keep; else if false fileinto "foo"; else trash Also, there are two similar looking lists -- a list of tests, which is comma-seperated like "(true, false)" and a list of strings, which looks like ("a string" "another string" "yet another string"). I had been told to get rid of one of them. Any opinions on this? -- Tim Showalter tjs@andrew.cmu.edu Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id SAA12816 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:37:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from PICARD.3K.COM (picard.3k.com [198.151.172.33]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA12812 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:37:41 -0800 (PST) From: "Chris Bartram" <RCB@3k.com> Organization: 3k Associates Reply-To: rcb@3k.com Message-Id: <006DSR@PICARD.3K.COM> X-Mailer: NetMail/3000 [Version B.06 97/10/28] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 21:37:24 -0500 X-Hpdesk-Priority: 3 (Normal Priority) Subject: Re[2]: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk In <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971105035352.3044F-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> TJS@ANDREW.CMU.EDU writes: Warning; long, rambling response follows: ;-) > > > My desire would be that filtering could be inserted at almost any stage. > > > If the result of the filter is that the message is going to be rejected > > > or rerouted, then better to catch it as early as possible before the bits > > > have crossed the wires. > > > > > > However, it is true that the farther you get from the recipient MUA, the > > > less likely the user is to get control over the disposition of messages. > > > > Is it reasonable to believe that this could be done in a robust and safe > > way? I fear such a dream can easily turn into a nightmare if not > > carefully > > analysed before implemented. > > Procmail has done a fairly decent job and presents roughly the same dangers, > and I think it has even more potential to shoot users in the feet. But I > haven't used it, and haven't even looked at the documentation much... We have implemented filtering in our mail system, both at the MTA (SMTP) level (i.e. global filter rules that can *truly* bounce messages based on invalid return[from/reply-to/sender] addresses and a few other rules) as well as the MTA/UA level (i.e. individuals can define rulesets that apply to messages which have been deposited in their "mailbox" -though before the messages are viewable by the UA). User-invoked rules can file/forward/ delete/various other actions, and are based on a syntax similar to what has been proposed; though our rules are entered into our system via a GUI that prevents the entry of actions we don't support (therefore my earlier object- ions to the necessity of parsing/storing rules or actions that our system does not support). As a side note, I still don't see a use for requiring us to preserve actions/rules that our system will not process *unless* there is also some standard extension (say for POP or IMAP) where clients can download their "stored" rulesets from the server upon connection... I don't see that happening here. The "MTA"(SMTP) level filtering refuses to accept messages, i.e. we actually return a 5xx error in response to the "DATA" smtp command, forcing the sending system to deal with the "bounce". Messages bounced this way never make it as far as an individual's mailbox. In turn, the filters at this level must be "global" since the MTA is operating on "the" instance of the message (before it is split and delivered to the -perhaps many- individuals designated as the recipients). This kind of bounce forces the overhead/problems of bad -or forged- return addresses onto the sending machine -- as opposed to the local system having to queue a *new* message attempting to deliver a notice to (the reported) sender of the original message. A note; as one that deals intimately with alot of SPAM, more and more of these "people" are using the (legal and difficult to filter otherwise): MAIL FROM:<> (i.e. empty return address) to foil normal DSNs and bounces. A UA (even one that has managed to find out/preserve the SMTP "MAIL FROM" address is often going to encounter this on exactly the type of messages a user would most often want to refuse. Queueing a new message to deliver a DSN using this address won't work. I don't object (too much) to a "reject" action as a special form of a "reply" action (which as I mentioned, *will* cause alot of problems to mail administrators, though nonetheless is a potentially useful function) but don't try to fool yourselves (or potential users invoking this action) into thinking that this action is at all useful in reference to any UCE/SPAM. And there will certainly need to be implementation notes describing some of the draw- backs; * most UAs will not have access to the SMTP "MAIL FROM" address anyway, which is where DSNs are *supposed* to go * even those that do will have to know to ignore (obviously) empty MAIL FROM addresses - so do implementations that support this action need exception handlers to deal with an invalid return address? Or simply silently disregard them? * using this action in response to a UCE/SPAM message will almost NEVER be useful, and in most cases will make the problem/impact worse Even a reply action is gonna need to be able to handle exceptions; even non- SPAM messages sometimes have invalid reply addresses, and if your "auto- responder" (action using reply) can't complete because of an invalid address (i.e. a bogus domain or something) then there should be an option that the rules could do something else... Final word; if it's gonna be done, do it right. :-) -Chris Bartram Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id SAA12328 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:03:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from PICARD.3K.COM (picard.3k.com [198.151.172.33]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA12323 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:03:05 -0800 (PST) From: "Chris Bartram" <RCB@3k.com> Organization: 3k Associates Reply-To: rcb@3k.com Message-Id: <006DSQ@PICARD.3K.COM> X-Mailer: NetMail/3000 [Version B.06 97/10/28] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 21:02:26 -0500 X-Hpdesk-Priority: 3 (Normal Priority) Subject: Re: {} in if/else To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk In <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971105160232.27664f-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> TJS@ANDREW.CMU.EDU writes: > So can I change the grammar to require the braces around commands in an > if/else? > > That is, > if true keep; > > wouldn't be legal; you'd need > if true { keep; } Why??? -Chris Bartram 3k Associates, Inc. Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id NAA06974 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:04:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (CMU1.ACS.CMU.EDU [128.2.35.186]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA06970 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:04:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from nil.andrew.cmu.edu (NIL.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.232.95]) by cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA29251 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:03:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:03:55 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> To: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: {} in if/else Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971105160232.27664f-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk So can I change the grammar to require the braces around commands in an if/else? That is, if true keep; wouldn't be legal; you'd need if true { keep; } -- Tim Showalter tjs@andrew.cmu.edu Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id JAA02065 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:13:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from deptvamc2-bh.va.gov (deptvachi-bh.va.gov [205.183.31.66]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA02060 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:13:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by deptvamc2-bh.va.gov (8.6.12/8.6.11) id LAA25796 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:13:08 -0600 Received: from 152.129.1.6 by deptvamc2-bh.va.gov via smap (3.2) id xmab25616; Wed, 5 Nov 97 11:13:05 -0600 Received: by vhaishhbexc1.med.va.gov with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.995.52) id <01BCE9DC.617CD860@vhaishhbexc1.med.va.gov>; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:17:19 -0600 Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=VA%l=VHAISFHBEXC1-971105171725Z-3242@vhaishhbexc1.med.va.gov> From: "Woodhouse, Gregory J." <gregory.woodhouse@med.va.gov> To: "'Tomas Fasth'" <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net>, "'Tim Showalter'" <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> Cc: "'MTA Filters'" <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: RE: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:17:25 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.995.52 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Indeed. I'm a big fan of procmail, but I always warn people (maybe to excess) to be very careful when first setting up procmail and to get someone to help them through the process if at all possible. I don't know if mail filtering with any sort of rewrite capability can be made "safe" in this sense. (Sorry, if I miss the point here - I've been unable to study sieve in detail just yet because of other fires). Perhaps an informational RFC listing caveats for implementing mail filtering would be in order. === Gregory Woodhouse San Francisco CIO Field Office - Infrastructure Gregory.Woodhouse@med.va.gov +1 415 744 6362 ---------- From: Tim Showalter [SMTP:tjs@andrew.cmu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 1:03 AM To: Tomas Fasth Cc: MTA Filters Subject: Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) [...] Procmail has done a fairly decent job and presents roughly the same dangers, and I think it has even more potential to shoot users in the feet. But I haven't used it, and haven't even looked at the documentation much... [...] Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id BAA22766 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 01:03:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (CMU1.ACS.CMU.EDU [128.2.35.186]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA22761 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 01:03:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from nil.andrew.cmu.edu (NIL.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.232.95]) by cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA03362; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 04:03:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 04:03:05 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> Reply-To: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> To: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> cc: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) In-Reply-To: <345FB21B.7200E01A@twinspot.net> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971105035352.3044F-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Tomas Fasth wrote: > > My desire would be that filtering could be inserted at almost any stage. > > If the result of the filter is that the message is going to be rejected > > or rerouted, then better to catch it as early as possible before the bits > > have crossed the wires. > > > > However, it is true that the farther you get from the recipient MUA, the > > less likely the user is to get control over the disposition of messages. > > Is it reasonable to believe that this could be done in a robust and safe > way? I fear such a dream can easily turn into a nightmare if not > carefully > analysed before implemented. Procmail has done a fairly decent job and presents roughly the same dangers, and I think it has even more potential to shoot users in the feet. But I haven't used it, and haven't even looked at the documentation much... > > } On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Tomas Fasth wrote: > > } > > } Rationale: I don't understand the difference between MTA and MUA filtering. > > Just for the record: I (Tomas Fasth) did not made the qouted statement > above or any of the consecutive qouted statements. I think it was Tim > that made those statements. I made this statement. I think bounce (or reject) has utility, although I'd like to hear more concrete examples. Bart Schaefer's examples seem valid enough, but I'm wavering a bit. I'm inclined to make it optional. -- Tim Showalter tjs@andrew.cmu.edu Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id AAA22605 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 00:52:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (CMU1.ACS.CMU.EDU [128.2.35.186]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA22599 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 00:52:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from nil.andrew.cmu.edu (NIL.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.232.95]) by cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA03180 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 03:52:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 03:52:03 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> To: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: bounce -> reject In-Reply-To: <345FBAB9.2A4890FC@twinspot.net> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971105035126.3044B-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Tomas Fasth wrote: > Tim Showalter wrote: > > > > I have no problem with renaming "bounce" to something more descriptive; > > "bounce" is already used for other commands anyway ("bounce" in pine, for > > instance). > > > > Would "reject" be okay? > > Yes, I think that's more descriptive than "bounce". > Are you going to make DSN the mandatory format for a reject? I'm not sure. Should I? (didn't I?) -- Tim Showalter tjs@andrew.cmu.edu Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id AAA22579 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 00:51:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (CMU1.ACS.CMU.EDU [128.2.35.186]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA22573 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 00:51:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from nil.andrew.cmu.edu (NIL.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.232.95]) by cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA03146; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 03:51:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 03:51:09 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> To: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> cc: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) In-Reply-To: <345FAD06.D115FDDD@twinspot.net> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971105033908.3044A-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Tomas Fasth wrote: > > Why shouldn't they? They have all the envelope information they need. > > If a message can't be given to the user but was delivered to the mail store, > > the POP client is probably the only program that knows why. > > Tim, I understand that, with the exception that Return-Path: might > not be available and you may therefore not be able to conform to the > following quote from RFC 1894 chapter 2 page 7 2nd paragraph: > " > The DSN MUST be addressed (in both the message header and the > transport envelope) to the return address from the transport envelope > which accompanied the original message for which the DSN was > generated. (For a message that arrived via SMTP, the envelope return > address appears in the MAIL FROM command.) > " 821 says MTAs write the MAIL FROM address into the Return-Path header. While I can imagine an MTA that violated this, it's unlikely that a site would want filtering and be unwilling to upgrade to a slightly more compliant MTA. > Anyway, a POP client generating DSN's does not make much sense to me. > The message has already reached it's destination, nothing can be done > to prevent a delivery. But in what context has it hit its destination? > > No, I don't. Prohibitions against configuring your mailer to do something > > dumb are not typically part of protocol documentation. > > Hmm. You might not want to prohibit. > But you might want to discourage inappropriate usage. How? The only thing I can think of is something that suggests users try avoiding doing dumb things, and that's rather difficult. -- Tim Showalter tjs@andrew.cmu.edu Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id QAA16456 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:15:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA16452 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:15:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA07800 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 01:15:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <345FBAB9.2A4890FC@twinspot.net> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 01:15:53 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: bounce -> reject References: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971104153133.29565H-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Tim Showalter wrote: > > I have no problem with renaming "bounce" to something more descriptive; > "bounce" is already used for other commands anyway ("bounce" in pine, for > instance). > > Would "reject" be okay? Yes, I think that's more descriptive than "bounce". Are you going to make DSN the mandatory format for a reject? -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> tel: +46-13-218-181 cel: +46-708-870-957 fax: +46-708-870-258 TwinSpot is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation in Sweden Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id QAA16414 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:12:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA16410 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:12:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA07788 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 01:12:49 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <345FBA0B.683E921F@twinspot.net> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 01:12:59 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) References: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971103163617.27664F-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> <971104084307.ZM14917@candle.brasslantern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Bart Schaefer wrote: > } Would making "bounce" optional help? > > I don't think so. One could still construct and send a DSN using other > seive tools, so making it optional just makes it more difficult to do > the action, not impossible. I would suggest to do exactly that. Even make it an extension. (Oh, I think I already stated that in another mail) It would give the result you describe above, which I would like to see happen. Then it might be concieved as a not so normal action, and might not be as frequently abused by mistake as it might be otherwise. -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> tel: +46-13-218-181 cel: +46-708-870-957 fax: +46-708-870-258 TwinSpot is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation in Sweden Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id PAA15934 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:38:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA15930 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:38:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA07750 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 00:38:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <345FB21B.7200E01A@twinspot.net> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 00:39:07 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) References: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971103163617.27664F-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> <971104084307.ZM14917@candle.brasslantern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Bart Schaefer wrote: > > I believe the model that other IETF groups are aiming for is more like > > [Sender MUA] -> [Submission Agent] -> > [chain of zero or more Transport Agents] -> > [Delivery Agent] -> [Recipient MUA] > > There is active work on separating message relay (as happens in the chain > of transport agents) from message submission. > > However, I think both the Submission and Delivery agents are legitimately > considered part of the transport system. Thanks Bart for the clarification. I can accept that model. It seem to me that [Delivery Agent] is more or less equal to a [Message Store], if one equals [Recipient MUA] with an IMAP client. > My desire would be that filtering could be inserted at almost any stage. > If the result of the filter is that the message is going to be rejected > or rerouted, then better to catch it as early as possible before the bits > have crossed the wires. > > However, it is true that the farther you get from the recipient MUA, the > less likely the user is to get control over the disposition of messages. Is it reasonable to believe that this could be done in a robust and safe way? I fear such a dream can easily turn into a nightmare if not carefully analysed before implemented. > } On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Tomas Fasth wrote: > } > } Rationale: I don't understand the difference between MTA and MUA filtering. Just for the record: I (Tomas Fasth) did not made the qouted statement above or any of the consecutive qouted statements. I think it was Tim that made those statements. -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> tel: +46-13-218-181 cel: +46-708-870-957 fax: +46-708-870-258 TwinSpot is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation in Sweden Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id PAA15671 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:17:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA15667 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:17:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA07725 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 00:17:16 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <345FAD06.D115FDDD@twinspot.net> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 00:17:26 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) References: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971103215434.27664H-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Tim Showalter wrote: > Sieve is designed to filter a message at time of "final delivery", a > deliberately open-ended term concocted to make it clear that it's supposed > to happen just before the message hits the message store, and only happen > once. I think this is enough. Okay. I won't argue about that. > > An interesting question: are POP clients supposed to be able to > > generate DSN's? That might put some arguments on it's head. :-) > > Why shouldn't they? They have all the envelope information they need. > If a message can't be given to the user but was delivered to the mail store, > the POP client is probably the only program that knows why. Tim, I understand that, with the exception that Return-Path: might not be available and you may therefore not be able to conform to the following quote from RFC 1894 chapter 2 page 7 2nd paragraph: " The DSN MUST be addressed (in both the message header and the transport envelope) to the return address from the transport envelope which accompanied the original message for which the DSN was generated. (For a message that arrived via SMTP, the envelope return address appears in the MAIL FROM command.) " Anyway, a POP client generating DSN's does not make much sense to me. The message has already reached it's destination, nothing can be done to prevent a delivery. > No, I don't. Prohibitions against configuring your mailer to do something > dumb are not typically part of protocol documentation. Hmm. You might not want to prohibit. But you might want to discourage inappropriate usage. > Sieve scripts should be portable, and I know of no case where this isn't > true (other than the lack of non-INBOX-like mailboxes if a Sieve script is > run on a POP server). Okay, I take that back. I think I ment broken in the sense of doing undesirable actions. > Sieve was designed to be run on the server when the message is delivered as > part of the MTA. My definition of MTA is broader than yours; I think the > MTA writes to the mail store, you think the mail store takes the message > from the MTA. So, we have to live with that. I won't push it any further. > Bounce can be implemented easily by any program that can connect to an SMTP > server given an RFC822 message, to the best of my knowledge. Right. Writing a program is one thing. Giving end users the power of bouncing is another. This is something that have a potential of becoming available to millions of users. And I still don't understand why an end user would want to cause an automatic bounce. Why is this a desirable action? Your argument seem to be that it can be technically done, therefore it have to be provided. -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> tel: +46-13-218-181 cel: +46-708-870-957 fax: +46-708-870-258 TwinSpot is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation in Sweden Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id OAA14354 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 14:13:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from candle.brasslantern.com (schaefer@zagzig.zanshin.com [206.155.48.241]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA14338 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 14:12:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA16025 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 14:12:46 -0800 From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@brasslantern.com> Message-Id: <971104141246.ZM16024@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 14:12:46 -0800 In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971104153405.29565I-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> Comments: In reply to Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> "Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft)" (Nov 4, 3:37pm) References: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971104153405.29565I-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> Reply-To: schaefer@nbn.com X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk On Nov 4, 3:37pm, Tim Showalter wrote: > Subject: Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) > On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Bart Schaefer wrote: > > > In the real world, POP3 drops > > are sometimes overloaded to deliver messages to an entire domain, e.g. > > as a "replacement" for UUCP. > > How do sites like this handle mailing lists, BCCs, and the like? Very poorly, if at all. Some implementations of delivery agents insert extra information in the message headers, which is then hopefully stripped out by the POP3 client on the other end. Eric Raymond, the author of fetchmail, was asking about this on another ietf list recently; and I believe Dan Bernstein, author of the qmail-mta, said his MTA already uses a custom header-field protocol for passing envelope information across POP3. Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id NAA13374 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:23:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (CMU1.ACS.CMU.EDU [128.2.35.186]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA13370 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:23:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from nil.andrew.cmu.edu (NIL.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.232.95]) by cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA06191 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:22:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:22:50 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> To: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971104153405.29565I-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971104162140.27664S-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Tim Showalter wrote: > On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Bart Schaefer wrote: > Ok; I never considered SMTP-level filtering seriously. Which is why there's > an implicit assumption that the agent has the entire message. Er, this is misleading; I'm sorry. I didn't consider it at all. Nor do I wish to dismiss it. The draft doesn't handle it. -- Tim Showalter tjs@andrew.cmu.edu Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id MAA12768 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 12:37:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (CMU1.ACS.CMU.EDU [128.2.35.186]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA12764 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 12:37:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from nil.andrew.cmu.edu (NIL.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.232.95]) by cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA03480 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:37:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:37:43 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> To: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) In-Reply-To: <971104084307.ZM14917@candle.brasslantern.com> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971104153405.29565I-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Bart Schaefer wrote: > } On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Tomas Fasth wrote: > } > } Rationale: I don't understand the difference between MTA and MUA filtering. > > I see two differences: > > 1. An MTA may not have access to all the UA's mailboxes. > > 2. An MUA can't reject/reroute at the transport protocol level. Ok; I never considered SMTP-level filtering seriously. Which is why there's an implicit assumption that the agent has the entire message. > The significant difference is that, even if the envelope sender in the > Return-Path is correct, the POP3 client has no access to the envelope > *recipients*. In an ideal world, that makes little difference, because > every recipient has his own POP3 maildrop. In the real world, POP3 drops > are sometimes overloaded to delivery messages to an entire domain, e.g. > as a "replacement" for UUCP. > > Of course, there's little the Seive language can do about that, except > to make it easier for the ISP in such situations to provide server-side > filtering. How do sites like this handle mailing lists, BCCs, and the like? Should Sieve handle this? (I don't want to, but should it?) > } Would making "bounce" optional help? > > I don't think so. One could still construct and send a DSN using other > seive tools, so making it optional just makes it more difficult to do > the action, not impossible. OK; I was suggesting this as a policy choice as much as a technichal choice. -- Tim Showalter tjs@andrew.cmu.edu Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id MAA12646 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 12:32:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (CMU1.ACS.CMU.EDU [128.2.35.186]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA12641 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 12:32:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from nil.andrew.cmu.edu (NIL.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.232.95]) by cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA03209 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:32:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:32:36 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> To: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: bounce -> reject Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971104153133.29565H-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk I have no problem with renaming "bounce" to something more descriptive; "bounce" is already used for other commands anyway ("bounce" in pine, for instance). Would "reject" be okay? (Tomas: sorry for missing this earlier.) -- Tim Showalter tjs@andrew.cmu.edu Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id MAA12627 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 12:31:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (CMU1.ACS.CMU.EDU [128.2.35.186]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA12615 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 12:31:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from nil.andrew.cmu.edu (NIL.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.232.95]) by cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA03152; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:31:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:31:21 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> To: Tomas Fasth <tomfa@twinspot.net>, MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: Comment on draft-showalter-sieve-02.txt In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971104113919.00832a40@lacroix.wildbear.on.ca> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971104152948.29565G-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Jack De Winter wrote: > in the context that you have described, I would agree. however, > in other contexts, I can see how it would be a hinderance rather > than a help. At best, it's possible to look up syntax errors well before running the script. At worst, it's possible to look at errors just milliseconds before running the script. All implementations should do this, as getting halfway into a script and realizing that there's no } on that if is a bad thing. (This is my problem with require, which effectively mandates an extra interpretation step to find requires.) -- Tim Showalter tjs@andrew.cmu.edu Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id IAA08544 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:43:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from candle.brasslantern.com (schaefer@zagzig.zanshin.com [206.155.48.241]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA08539 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:43:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA14918 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:43:08 -0800 From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@brasslantern.com> Message-Id: <971104084307.ZM14917@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:43:07 -0800 In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971103163617.27664F-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> Comments: In reply to Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> "bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft)" (Nov 3, 5:05pm) References: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971103163617.27664F-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk On Nov 3, 5:05pm, Tim Showalter wrote: } Subject: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) } } So that is, for most users. } [a message in Sender MUA]->[Sender MTA]-> } [Receiver MTA]->[{something}]->[Receiver MUA] I believe the model that other IETF groups are aiming for is more like [Sender MUA] -> [Submission Agent] -> [chain of zero or more Transport Agents] -> [Delivery Agent] -> [Recipient MUA] There is active work on separating message relay (as happens in the chain of transport agents) from message submission. However, I think both the Submission and Delivery agents are legitimately considered part of the transport system. } I consider the "something" to be part of the MTA because it is transferring } the message. But I really don't care. My desire is that somewhere in } "something" is a filtering agent. My desire would be that filtering could be inserted at almost any stage. If the result of the filter is that the message is going to be rejected or rerouted, then better to catch it as early as possible before the bits have crossed the wires. However, it is true that the farther you get from the recipient MUA, the less likely the user is to get control over the disposition of messages. } On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Tomas Fasth wrote: } } Rationale: I don't understand the difference between MTA and MUA filtering. I see two differences: 1. An MTA may not have access to all the UA's mailboxes. 2. An MUA can't reject/reroute at the transport protocol level. } I believe the difference between MTA and MUA filtering, where the filtering } agent has the entire message, is more or less meaningless. The Seive draft is written with the assumption that filtering happens at delivery time, so that it's already too late for (2). But (1) remains a problem: } In a POP3 system where filtering has to be done where remote folders } are stored, filtering is done by the client. Both are equally capable } of sorting mail into folders, generating a reply and submitting it to } an SMTP server, of throwing the message away, and of generating a DSN. The significant difference is that, even if the envelope sender in the Return-Path is correct, the POP3 client has no access to the envelope *recipients*. In an ideal world, that makes little difference, because every recipient has his own POP3 maildrop. In the real world, POP3 drops are sometimes overloaded to delivery messages to an entire domain, e.g. as a "replacement" for UUCP. Of course, there's little the Seive language can do about that, except to make it easier for the ISP in such situations to provide server-side filtering. } Would making "bounce" optional help? I don't think so. One could still construct and send a DSN using other seive tools, so making it optional just makes it more difficult to do the action, not impossible. -- Bart Schaefer Zanshin http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.zanshin.com Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id IAA08502 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:41:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from lacroix.wildbear.on.ca (lacroix.wildbear.on.ca [199.246.132.198]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA08497 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:40:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by lacroix.wildbear.on.ca from localhost (router,SLmailNT V3.0 (alpha 10)); Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:36:33 -0500 Received: by lacroix.wildbear.on.ca from wildside.wildbear.on.ca (199.246.132.193::mail daemon,SLmailNT V3.0 (alpha 10)); Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:36:32 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971104114250.008341f0@lacroix.wildbear.on.ca> X-Sender: "Unverified" <jack@wildbear.on.ca> X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 11:42:50 -0500 To: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net>, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> From: "Jack De Winter" <jack@wildbear.on.ca> Subject: Re: sieve draft Cc: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org In-Reply-To: <327BBE04.E8A05115@twinspot.net> References: <199711010202.DAA00249@waxbill.twinspot.net> <971031213536.ZM30981@candle.brasslantern.com> <327A748D.46115C78@twinspot.net> <971101201941.ZM3066@candle.brasslantern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk At 10:32 PM 11/2/96 +0100, Tomas Fasth wrote: >Bart Schaefer wrote: > >> It's certainly possible to handle it that way. However, note that there >> are nonzero costs associated with accepting delivery. If the typical >> message to my hypothetical support service contains a many-megabyte >> coredump (and I have direct experience with users who mail such things >> to support addresses), I'd much rather refuse delivery altogether than >> have to consume the bandwidth to accept the message and then discard it. > >I can see your point. > >But in order to avoid consuming bandwidth you need to apply the >filtering rules as part of SMTP negotiation. The information >available at that point will limit your filtering rules to operate >on the addresses of the originator and the recipients as negotiated >by MAIL and RCPT, and possibly some peer information. well, if I remember one of the discussion at the conference in Memphis right, the problem occured if mail was send to A and B, where A and B had different sets of filtering rules. you would have to accept both of them, and then apply another filtering after the message duplication had occured. regards, Jack ------------------------------------------------- Jack De Winter - Wildbear Consulting, Inc. (519) 884-4498 http://www.wildbear.on.ca/jacks/ Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id IAA08479 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:40:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from lacroix.wildbear.on.ca (lacroix.wildbear.on.ca [199.246.132.198]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA08468 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:40:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by lacroix.wildbear.on.ca from localhost (router,SLmailNT V3.0 (alpha 10)); Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:34:19 -0500 Received: by lacroix.wildbear.on.ca from wildside.wildbear.on.ca (199.246.132.193::mail daemon,SLmailNT V3.0 (alpha 10)); Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:34:18 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971104114036.007eea50@lacroix.wildbear.on.ca> X-Sender: "Unverified" <jack@wildbear.on.ca> X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 11:40:36 -0500 To: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@brasslantern.com>, Tomas Fasth <tomfa@twinspot.net>, tjs@andrew.cmu.edu (Tim Showalter) From: "Jack De Winter" <jack@wildbear.on.ca> Subject: Re: sieve draft Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org In-Reply-To: <971031213536.ZM30981@candle.brasslantern.com> References: <199711010202.DAA00249@waxbill.twinspot.net> <199711010202.DAA00249@waxbill.twinspot.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk At 09:35 PM 10/31/97 -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote: >On Nov 1, 3:02am, Tomas Fasth wrote: >} >} What other than spam would be a subject for delivery refusal? > >Some examples: > >I run an email customer support service. Customers with paid support can >legitimately send mail to support@supporters.com. All other messages >sent to that address are bounced, with the suggestion that they pay up. >(No, I don't really run such a service. These are examples.) another example is anyone who owns a mailing list. I would love to be able to set up a sieve script that handled legitimate users and bounce users that are not on the lists. regards, Jack ------------------------------------------------- Jack De Winter - Wildbear Consulting, Inc. (519) 884-4498 http://www.wildbear.on.ca/jacks/ Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id IAA08449 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:39:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from lacroix.wildbear.on.ca (lacroix.wildbear.on.ca [199.246.132.198]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA08445 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:38:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by lacroix.wildbear.on.ca from localhost (router,SLmailNT V3.0 (alpha 10)); Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:33:03 -0500 Received: by lacroix.wildbear.on.ca from wildside.wildbear.on.ca (199.246.132.193::mail daemon,SLmailNT V3.0 (alpha 10)); Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:33:01 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971104113919.00832a40@lacroix.wildbear.on.ca> X-Sender: "Unverified" <jack@wildbear.on.ca> X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 11:39:19 -0500 To: Tomas Fasth <tomfa@twinspot.net> From: "Jack De Winter" <jack@wildbear.on.ca> Subject: Re: Comment on draft-showalter-sieve-02.txt Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org In-Reply-To: <199711010029.BAA20470@waxbill.twinspot.net> References: <199710312052.PAA09727@weyr.cnri.reston.va.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk >My personal view is that syntax errors should be caught before the >script is put to work. I am not willing to equal this particular >situation with avarage execution of command shell scripts. >These scripts are about to execute in batch mode as part of a >delivery process. >An good example is aliases as used by sendmail. The aliases file >have to be processed before being put into the message dispatch >process. Syntax errors are reported to the operator. The alias >lookup mechanism in sendmail does not have to deal with >syntactical errors. >Why not apply a similar requirement on filtering? in the context that you have described, I would agree. however, in other contexts, I can see how it would be a hinderance rather than a help. regards, Jack ------------------------------------------------- Jack De Winter - Wildbear Consulting, Inc. (519) 884-4498 http://www.wildbear.on.ca/jacks/ Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id TAA27789 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 19:24:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (CMU1.ACS.CMU.EDU [128.2.35.186]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA27784 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 19:24:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from nil.andrew.cmu.edu (NIL.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.232.95]) by cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA26900 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 22:24:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 22:24:02 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> Reply-To: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> To: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) In-Reply-To: <345E86E4.CF6ED985@twinspot.net> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971103215434.27664H-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Please don't CC me on list messages. I'm subscribed to the list, and it's a little annoying. On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Tomas Fasth wrote: > Tim Showalter wrote: > > > Nailing it down limits the applicability of the draft. What does it change? > > Hmm, would rather say that it makes the applicability clearer for > the implementors. But it depends on how specialized or generic you > want Sieve to be. I think Sieve is enough special to deserve an > explaination in what circumstances it is intended to be used. I really don't agree with this. Systems that say, "Don't use this unless you're in this position" don't get used. It seems silly. The major places where this could be used would be an IMAP server, a POP client, or a Unix system using whatever local mail facilities are availible (something more sophisticated than, say, Berkley mailspools). > > Rationale: I don't understand the difference between MTA and MUA filtering. > > I admit, it _is_ confusing. I'd argue that it doesn't exist. I see no difference between pre-delivery filtering and post-delivery filtering because I can't see the perceptible, on-the-wire difference between a filter running at SMTP level as a part of the SMTP agent and a filter running on the end of a pipe from sendmail. One is SMTP, the other just happens to convey the same information and take an RFC822 format message. Sieve is designed to filter a message at time of "final delivery", a deliberately open-ended term concocted to make it clear that it's supposed to happen just before the message hits the message store, and only happen once. I think this is enough. > An interesting question: are POP clients supposed to be able to > generate DSN's? That might put some arguments on it's head. :-) Why shouldn't they? They have all the envelope information they need. If a message can't be given to the user but was delivered to the mail store, the POP client is probably the only program that knows why. > > So don't do that. (This would be a major configuration error.) > > Ah, but then, wouldn't it be a good thing to make a clarification > on when a set of rules is considered a major configuration error > and when not? No, I don't. Prohibitions against configuring your mailer to do something dumb are not typically part of protocol documentation. > What bothers me is that this spec is about to become a base for > several different implementations. I would recommend to design > Sieve in such a way that it will not become broken when shifting > from one implementation to another. Sieve scripts should be portable, and I know of no case where this isn't true (other than the lack of non-INBOX-like mailboxes if a Sieve script is run on a POP server). > In this particular case, I asked for a clarification in what > contexts Sieve is to be designed for. If the context is not > clear, we might end up with a language causing more trouble > than joy. Please provide an example. Bounce isn't it; it's not hard to generate a DSN given an RFC822 message, which you have anyway. Sieve was designed to be run on the server when the message is delivered as part of the MTA. My definition of MTA is broader than yours; I think the MTA writes to the mail store, you think the mail store takes the message from the MTA. That said, I do not believe that "bounce" represents an ambiguity in Sieve's role. MTA, MUA, and other X.400-derived terms are useful for labeling parts of an Internet mail system, but are not authoritive, or even rigerously defined, or in the case of many specifications, defined (or used) at all. Bounce can be implemented easily by any program that can connect to an SMTP server given an RFC822 message, to the best of my knowledge. -- Tim Showalter tjs@andrew.cmu.edu Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id TAA27661 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 19:17:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA27656 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 19:17:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA06597; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 04:17:25 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <345E93CC.D1E7A8AF@twinspot.net> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 04:17:32 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> CC: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) References: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971103163617.27664F-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Tim Showalter wrote: > I have made mistakes with the bounce command. At the very least, would > changing bounce so that > > * only one bounce per message > * performing a bounce restricts all other actions > > make things better? I think that if bounce stays in the spec, it should be a terminal action. That is, no further action allowed on the current message. Otherwise, you will easily end up in all sorts of more or less confusing situations. There are considerations to be done when you want to be conformant to the DSN spec. > Would making "bounce" optional help? Yes, that would help a lot. I even want it to be an extension. By doing that, the ambiguity in it's operation is no longer part of the base spec. -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> tel: +46-13-218-181 cel: +46-708-870-957 fax: +46-708-870-258 TwinSpot is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation in Sweden Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id TAA27522 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 19:07:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA27515 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 19:07:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA06586; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 04:08:02 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <345E9199.F4352D43@twinspot.net> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 04:08:09 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> CC: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) References: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971103163617.27664F-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Tim Showalter wrote: > > In the case of sendmail, the final delivery is actually done by a > > separate program (mail, rmail, mail.local). I would not include > > that program in the domain of an MTA. > > Why not? It's certainly moving an RFC-822 compliant* message from one point > to another, even if it's not via SMTP. > > (* More or less, anyway.) Hmm. It's not really about who has monopoly on moving messages around. It's about what domains of responsibility the message is passing through. My view is that an MTA is not responsible of doing final delivery on the local machine. Only to identify that the destination of the message is local and then pass the message to the message store, (possibly using a delivery agent ;-) > > And in the end, what all my rioting in this thread have been > > leading up to is my assertion that Sieve is actually executing > > in the context of the message store, beyond the point where a > > message have been delivered by the MTA but before the point were > > it has been filed. Therefore a message cannot be bounced, only > > handled by performing a drop, reply or store. > > Why? What's the difference? There is no prohibition of sending message > status notifications from outside SMTP. The difference is in how I define pre- and post-delivery processing. Pre- is doing accept-reject decisions, post- is doing management tasks. But that might be considered academical hair-splitting by some. > > Even if you allow to execute Sieve in a context where it is > > possible to reject a delivery, you still have a problem when the > > same set of rules are about to run on the MUA-level. > > So don't do that. (This would be a major configuration error.) Ah, but then, wouldn't it be a good thing to make a clarification on when a set of rules is considered a major configuration error and when not? Or maybe you suggest this to be addressed by the implementation documentation. Which might be a better place after all... Hmm. What bothers me is that this spec is about to become a base for several different implementations. I would recommend to design Sieve in such a way that it will not become broken when shifting from one implementation to another. In this particular case, I asked for a clarification in what contexts Sieve is to be designed for. If the context is not clear, we might end up with a language causing more trouble than joy. -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> tel: +46-13-218-181 cel: +46-708-870-957 fax: +46-708-870-258 TwinSpot is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation in Sweden Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id SAA26998 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 18:22:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA26993 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 18:22:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA06537; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 03:22:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <345E86E4.CF6ED985@twinspot.net> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 03:22:28 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> CC: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) References: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971103163617.27664F-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Tim Showalter wrote: > Nailing it down limits the applicability of the draft. What does it change? Hmm, would rather say that it makes the applicability clearer for the implementors. But it depends on how specialized or generic you want Sieve to be. I think Sieve is enough special to deserve an explaination in what circumstances it is intended to be used. > Rationale: I don't understand the difference between MTA and MUA filtering. I admit, it _is_ confusing. I have been asserting that there are a difference, of which I have tried to explain my view on what the differences are. But that does not mean that I am the one to be right. Therefore, this discussion helps a lot to put things in perspective. When you bring up Cyrus as an example of MTA filtering you should note that although the filtering is typically done by using the .forward mechanism calling something like procmail, it could just as well have been done by the deliver(8) program, which is distributed as part of the cyrus package, which I essentially regard as a system for message storage. Personally I regard the POP3 protocol as a a maildrop forwarding protocol. The end user are therefore restricted to perform post- delivery filtering only when the maildrop have been forwarded to where the message store is situated and where access to personal folders is possible. In the case of a POP client, this is the same as the local PC (or equivalent). An interesting question: are POP clients supposed to be able to generate DSN's? That might put some arguments on it's head. :-) -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> tel: +46-13-218-181 cel: +46-708-870-957 fax: +46-708-870-258 TwinSpot is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation in Sweden Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id RAA26618 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 17:41:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA26614 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 17:41:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA06494; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 02:41:33 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <345E7D54.8B718199@twinspot.net> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 02:41:40 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> CC: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: Re: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) References: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971103163617.27664F-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Tim Showalter wrote: > > MTA is a misleading term. If the only part of the MTA is the SMTP server, > what happens between MTAs and MUAs? There's stuff there, even if it's just > a program that appends to a file. You say it's not part of the MTA. It's > clearly not part of the MUA. But it is a part of the SMTP model; it is as > important as the MUA and the MTA, but it's not getting the recognition it > deserves. Yes, I think you're right, it definitely deserves a better recognition. Not the least these days when the requirements is much higher on the internet messaging model then it was in the earlier days. Everybody would gain from having a more accurate model to work with. > So that is, for most users. > [a message in Sender MUA]->[Sender MTA]-> > [Receiver MTA]->[{something}]->[Receiver MUA] I would like to call the "something" a message store. Although it's a term borrowed from the OSI model, it makes sense. Someone suggested delivery agent, but I would regard that as the mediator between the message transfer agent and the message store. The presence of a message store is easier to understand today when we have IMAP to play with. In particular, IMAP's capability to move around messages between multiple mailboxes on the server side. It seem not appropriate to say that the MTA is involved in such post-delivery tasks. IMAP can be said to be the access protocol to the message store. > I consider the "something" to be part of the MTA because it is transferring > the message. But I really don't care. My desire is that somewhere in > "something" is a filtering agent. Eventually it all comes down to how we define things. My view on an nternet messaging system is most probably not the correct one. But I do think the exercise of trying to find the least incorrect one might pay off in a cleaner design of it's components such as Sieve. I think filtering agent is a good term for an entity responsible to perform rule-based filtering. Agent because it does the filtering on behalf of someone, presumably the end user. If I would choose a place for filtering agents to reside in, it would be the message store. The reason is because this is the only place where you have access to the end user's mail folders. I was opposing a bounce action as part of a filtering rule primarily because I thought it to be performed as a post-delivery event. My view of filtering was as a service for the end user to organize the flow of incoming messages to his/her maildrop. The more I spend time on this issue, the more I get a feeling that most of the words spent sofar have it's origin from one or more misunderstanding. Early on there was a discussion on whether a bounce was a kind of a reply or not. Their similarity might not be important after all. From my point of view they seem to be in contexts that are mutually exclusive to each other. So, were a bounce is a valid action, reply is not. And vice versa. It might be good to recognize in the draft that Sieve might be put in use in either pre-delivery or post-delivery processing. In the case of pre-delivery processing, it's all about to decide whether the delivery will succeed or not. A bounce action will generate a DSN as described in the draft. As a matter of fact, after re-reading the DSN spec (RFC 1894) it might be an idea to rename that action to fail or failed to better match the intended use of DSN. This seem to be a task for the MTA. (Or may be the message delivery agent, MDA ;-) In the case of post-delivery processing, the task is to help the end user to organize incoming messages in a configurable way, including moving messages to different mail folders. I would suggest to identify the transfer point between pre- and post-delivery to be the maildrop. Before the message have reached the maildrop, an end user can only accept or reject a message. After the message have reached the maildrop, the message have been successfully delivered and can therefore not be rejected. What's left is for the end user to decide how to handle the message. I would suggest to not allow a bounce action in post-delivery processing of incoming messages, only reply action. -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> tel: +46-13-218-181 cel: +46-708-870-957 fax: +46-708-870-258 TwinSpot is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation in Sweden Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id OAA22287 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 14:05:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (CMU1.ACS.CMU.EDU [128.2.35.186]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA22278 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 14:05:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from nil.andrew.cmu.edu (NIL.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.232.95]) by cmu1.acs.cmu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA12720 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 17:05:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 17:05:23 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> Reply-To: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu> To: MTA Filters <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> Subject: bounce, mta, & mua (was Re: sieve draft) In-Reply-To: <327BF1F8.4BD71CF@twinspot.net> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95L.971103163617.27664F-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk I've trimmed the CC line because I don't need multiple copies of messages. If there are a number of followers of the thread who aren't subscribed, I'm sorry. If you find a good definition of MTA and MUA, please let me know. The definitions in 1123, if I recall correctly, are because people were using them; they're very vague. MTA is a misleading term. If the only part of the MTA is the SMTP server, what happens between MTAs and MUAs? There's stuff there, even if it's just a program that appends to a file. You say it's not part of the MTA. It's clearly not part of the MUA. But it is a part of the SMTP model; it is as important as the MUA and the MTA, but it's not getting the recognition it deserves. So that is, for most users. [a message in Sender MUA]->[Sender MTA]-> [Receiver MTA]->[{something}]->[Receiver MUA] I consider the "something" to be part of the MTA because it is transferring the message. But I really don't care. My desire is that somewhere in "something" is a filtering agent. On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Tomas Fasth wrote: > Still, I thought it to have been unclear when this MTA-level > filtering was about to take place. [...] Nailing it down limits the applicability of the draft. What does it change? Rationale: I don't understand the difference between MTA and MUA filtering. In some systems (say, Cyrus) things will be done essentially by the MTA (before the message ever hits a user-accessible mailbox). In a POP3 system where filtering has to be done where remote folders are stored, filtering is done by the client. Both are equally capable of sorting mail into folders, generating a reply and submitting it to an SMTP server, of throwing the message away, and of generating a DSN. > In the case of sendmail, the final delivery is actually done by a > separate program (mail, rmail, mail.local). I would not include > that program in the domain of an MTA. Why not? It's certainly moving an RFC-822 compliant* message from one point to another, even if it's not via SMTP. (* More or less, anyway.) > And in the end, what all my rioting in this thread have been > leading up to is my assertion that Sieve is actually executing > in the context of the message store, beyond the point where a > message have been delivered by the MTA but before the point were > it has been filed. Therefore a message cannot be bounced, only > handled by performing a drop, reply or store. Why? What's the difference? There is no prohibition of sending message status notifications from outside SMTP. > Even if you allow to execute Sieve in a context where it is > possible to reject a delivery, you still have a problem when the > same set of rules are about to run on the MUA-level. So don't do that. (This would be a major configuration error.) > It is not mandatory to keep the address to the SMTP originator > beyond the point of delivery, so it might not be available when > you are about to initiate a bounce. Actually, the Return-Path line is for that purpose. > Therefore, in the case of mailing list exploders, you may not > know by what address the message was delivered to you, which > makes a bounce pointless, because you may not have access to > the return-path nor the recipient address (which may be needed > to fix the cause of rejection). You mail the mailing list exploder which has written its address into the Return-Path line. > Was Sieve really intended to do SMTP-level filtering as well? > Or was this only a wild idea raised in the heat of the debate? I hadn't put enough thought into this. You can't filter a message until you have a copy of the message (mostly). So my intention was that the message would have to leave SMTP before being checked with a Sieve script. I believe the difference between MTA and MUA filtering, where the filtering agent has the entire message, is more or less meaningless. I have made mistakes with the bounce command. At the very least, would changing bounce so that * only one bounce per message * performing a bounce restricts all other actions make things better? Would making "bounce" optional help? -- Tim Showalter tjs@andrew.cmu.edu Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id FAA14310 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 05:32:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from gatekeeper.cca.rockwell.com (firewall-user@gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com [205.175.225.1]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA14304 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 05:32:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by gatekeeper.cca.rockwell.com; id HAA22051; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 07:31:48 -0600 Received: from crnotes.cca.rockwell.com(131.198.213.32) by gatekeeper.cca.rockwell.com via smap (3.2) id xma022044; Mon, 3 Nov 97 07:31:23 -0600 Received: by crnotes.cca.rockwell.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v1.1 (385.6 5-6-1997)) id 86256544.005955B9 ; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 07:31:09 -0600 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ROCKWELL From: "Richard J Holland"<rjhollan@crnotes.cca.rockwell.com> To: schaefer@brasslantern.com cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Message-ID: <86256542.0060D361.00@crnotes.cca.rockwell.com> Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 11:47:02 -0600 Subject: Re: sieve draft Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk On 10/31/97 at 11:35pm, Bart Schaefer (schaefer@brasslantern.com) wrote: >} Actually, can you give examples of any other filtering tools that >} allow a bounce action that is distinguishable from a reply action? > > A reply action is typically directed to addresses taken from the > RFC822 header of the message, e.g. the "From" or "Reply-To" fields. > A bounce is typically directed to the envelope sender, e.g. the SMTP > "MAIL FROM" address. There presently aren't many (if any) tools that > are able to make that distinction, because there are few MTA-level > filtering tools; almost all must run "post-delivery" without access > to the SMTP envelope. One purpose of the sieve language, as I > understand it, is to enable the user to intervene *before* the MTA > delivers the message, thus making it *possible* to have distinguished > "bounce" and "reply" actions. Actually, the only difference between a bounce and a reply is the address you're sending to. For example, if my MTA (e.g. sendmail) gives the message to my delivery agent, it passes the envelope information to the delivery agent in most cases. What the delivery agent does with it is totally arbitrary. If a delivery agent wants to "bounce" the message, it should reply to the ENVELOPE sender address. It could also reply to the Errors-To: header address, but that's generally there for backward compatibility with older systems these days. If the delivery agent wants to "reply" to the message, it should look first at the Reply-To: header, and if it's not there, it should look at the Sender: header, and if it's not there, it should look at the From: header, and if all of these are absent, THEN it should fall back on the ENVELOPE sender address, as a last resort. This is a fairly subtle distinction, and a "bounce" usually happens at the MTA level (i.e. sendmail says "I don't know about this user" and returns a "550 - User unknown..." over the socket, so that the sender's MTA generates a local "bounce" message. But there's nothing that says you can't generate a "bounce" from you local delivery agent, instead of at the MTA level. This puts the work of generating the message back on your MTA however, and is something to consider at large sites. Regarding Tom's original query looking for examples of other filtering tools that allow a bounce action instead of a reply action, I've got one that I wrote here as a mail delivery agent in perl5. It's used for "bouncing" plain-english explanatory messages to senders when a recipient username is changed. We do it at the MDA level instead of the MTA level because in most cases, we want to forward the message on to the recipient's new address, but we want to let the sender know it changed, so we forward the message and "bounce" (or "reply" -- it's now an administrator-configurable option) a copy of the message back to the sender with a nice explanation of what's happening... Rich Holland Rockwell Collins, Inc. Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id RAA06348 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 17:14:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA06344 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 17:14:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA05011; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 02:14:26 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <327BF1F8.4BD71CF@twinspot.net> Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 02:14:32 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> CC: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: sieve draft References: <199711010202.DAA00249@waxbill.twinspot.net> <971031213536.ZM30981@candle.brasslantern.com> <327A748D.46115C78@twinspot.net> <971101201941.ZM3066@candle.brasslantern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Bart Schaefer wrote: > } My point is that if we use this description as a model, message > } delivery is just about to find the correct maildrop. That makes > } the task of the MTA much less complicated. > > The name of this mailing list *is* ietf-mta-filters. Have we all decided > that we're not talking about MTA-level filtering any more? Good point. I have been questioning the overall concept of MTA-level filtering. Which might not be a very good idea on a list dedicated to the task of doing exactly that. If I have been out of line here I appologize for that. Still, I thought it to have been unclear when this MTA-level filtering was about to take place. Reading one of my earlier postings in this thread, I recognize my own confusion, mixing it up with MUA-level filtering. My eager to argue, and therefore showering this list with several postings on the same subject, comes partly from my assumption that Sieve was going to be used in the context of UA-level filtering. But I seem to have been partly wrong. The Sieve draft states: " Implementations of the language are expected to take place at time of final delivery, when the message is finally moved to the user- accessible mailbox. In systems where the MTA does final delivery, such as and traditional UNIX mail, is reasonable to sort when the MTA deposits mail into the user's mailbox. If the MTA does not do final delivery, or lacks the power to sort into separate mailboxes, as is the case under POP3, the MUA must do filtering into local-disk folders. " It seem to me that the text about an MTA doing a final delivery is misleading. It might be the case that a monolithically designed program is performing several tasks, among them SMTP handshake, message routing, and local delivery. But this is not the same as saying that the MTA is doing this and that. In the case of sendmail, the final delivery is actually done by a separate program (mail, rmail, mail.local). I would not include that program in the domain of an MTA. On Unix systems it's sometimes not very easy to recognize the borders between different components within the mail subsystem. Still, I would like categorize the mail.local, pop and imap programs as part of the message store, not the message transport agent. You might think I am one of those idealistic OSI guys, but I ensure you, I'm not. I just like to have some order in the terminology we are using here. And in the end, what all my rioting in this thread have been leading up to is my assertion that Sieve is actually executing in the context of the message store, beyond the point where a message have been delivered by the MTA but before the point were it has been filed. Therefore a message cannot be bounced, only handled by performing a drop, reply or store. Even if you allow to execute Sieve in a context where it is possible to reject a delivery, you still have a problem when the same set of rules are about to run on the MUA-level. It is not mandatory to keep the address to the SMTP originator beyond the point of delivery, so it might not be available when you are about to initiate a bounce. Therefore, in the case of mailing list exploders, you may not know by what address the message was delivered to you, which makes a bounce pointless, because you may not have access to the return-path nor the recipient address (which may be needed to fix the cause of rejection). If something good have come out of this thread, it might be the distiction between SMTP-level filtering, MTA-level filtering and MUA-level filtering. The SMTP-level for processing filtering rules prior message transfer. The MTA-level for processing after message transfer but before local delivery (or possibly further relaying). The MUA-level for post-delivery processing. Was Sieve really intended to do SMTP-level filtering as well? Or was this only a wild idea raised in the heat of the debate? -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> tel: +46-13-218-181 cel: +46-708-870-957 fax: +46-708-870-258 TwinSpot is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation in Sweden Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id PAA05624 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 15:11:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA05620 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 15:11:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA04762; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 00:09:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <327BD4CC.3AC38034@twinspot.net> Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 00:10:04 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> CC: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: sieve draft References: <199711010202.DAA00249@waxbill.twinspot.net> <971031213536.ZM30981@candle.brasslantern.com> <327A748D.46115C78@twinspot.net> <971101201941.ZM3066@candle.brasslantern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Bart Schaefer wrote: > I don't think there's any disagreement on the terms, merely on when it is > appropriate to refuse. And those are matters of opinion, not definition. If you are about to design a message filtering language, it seem essential to determine in what context the filtering is actually taking place. Depending on the context, some operations, or actions, may or may not be appropriate. Therefore, it might be important to define those contexts, which then might give us technical reasons for whether an action is appropriate or not. Refuse is one such action in question. I regard Sieve as a language to be used for a very specific purpose, and is therefore not a generic language by definition. We should therefore be very careful not to give it characteristics that fall outside it's scope of use. -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> tel: +46-13-218-181 cel: +46-708-870-957 fax: +46-708-870-258 TwinSpot is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation in Sweden Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id OAA05446 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 14:58:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA05441 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 14:58:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA04744; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 23:58:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <327BD224.5AC77CA@twinspot.net> Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 23:58:44 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> CC: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: sieve draft References: <199711010202.DAA00249@waxbill.twinspot.net> <971031213536.ZM30981@candle.brasslantern.com> <327A748D.46115C78@twinspot.net> <971101201941.ZM3066@candle.brasslantern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Bart Schaefer wrote: > } Hmm. In this case I think your approach is unfriendly. > > Note that I'm assuming that repeated polite requests have failed. However, > again it's not up to the language designers to decide what is or is not > "friendly." I can agree that language designers are not in a position to impose any policies on the end user. The question still lingers: Does this list have interest in pointing out certain aspects of the Sieve draft that might not be appropriate to have included, because of the possibility of being abused, or being without practical use and therefore leading to confusion? -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> tel: +46-13-218-181 cel: +46-708-870-957 fax: +46-708-870-258 TwinSpot is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation in Sweden Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id OAA05148 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 14:10:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA05144 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 14:10:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA04704; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 23:10:25 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <327BC6D8.628B7DB@twinspot.net> Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 23:10:32 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> CC: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: sieve draft References: <199711010202.DAA00249@waxbill.twinspot.net> <971031213536.ZM30981@candle.brasslantern.com> <327A748D.46115C78@twinspot.net> <971101201941.ZM3066@candle.brasslantern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Bart Schaefer wrote: > Why would it be any harder to administer/maintain than a collection of > individual services? Especially if there is simply a seive script to be > associated with each such address. I did express a feeling more than a fact, I admit that. And I was relying on my own sense of modular design, which is not guaranteed to suite any other than myself ;-) Still, while you can provide a mechanism to allow pre-delivery filtering to be applied on individual addresses, it seem to me that this is a very different problem domain compared to when providing means for a user agent to apply filtering rules on the inbox messages. Especially when you're applying rules as part of SMTP recipient negotiation, as you described earlier. In such a context, using Sieve seem to be a big overkill. Or at least, most of the capabilities in Sieve seem to be non-applicable. The probability of applying broken rules as part of MTA operation seem to be much higher in that context, if you persist in using a language spec identical to the current draft of Sieve. In that case, yes, I'm pretty sure it will add a burden to the admin task. Compare this to a post-delivery senario, where the responsibility for filtering has shifted from the transport domain to the user domain. The transport is complete, delivery is successful. The postmaster don't have to bother about MTA malfunction because of some obscure set of filtering rules injected by a user. Or the other way around, he don't have to spend time proof-reading every set of rules the users want him to inject into the MTA operation. All this have significance, particularly in larger installations. -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> tel: +46-13-218-181 cel: +46-708-870-957 fax: +46-708-870-258 TwinSpot is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation in Sweden Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id NAA04907 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 13:37:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA04902 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 13:37:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA04667; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 22:37:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <327BBF0C.6F6920C4@twinspot.net> Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 22:37:16 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> CC: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: sieve draft References: <199711010202.DAA00249@waxbill.twinspot.net> <971031213536.ZM30981@candle.brasslantern.com> <327A748D.46115C78@twinspot.net> <971101201941.ZM3066@candle.brasslantern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Bart Schaefer wrote: > Hmm; having written that, I see that as presently written the sieve draft > assumes that the message has already been "accepted" and that the bounce > action merely resends it via a DSN. In that case I agree that "bouncing" > the message is much less interesting as a separate action. However, I'm > not convinced that there aren't valid reasons to want to use a DSN rather > than an MDN to describe what has occurred. My opinion is that once the message have been delivered, sending a DSN would not make sense anymore. Not the least since communication beyond the point of delivery should be regarded as end-to-end, between end-users (or their agents). From that perspective, using MDN seem more appropriate if you want to do any "out-of-band" communication to the other end. -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> tel: +46-13-218-181 cel: +46-708-870-957 fax: +46-708-870-258 TwinSpot is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation in Sweden Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id NAA04870 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 13:33:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA04866 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 13:33:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA04658; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 22:32:46 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <327BBE04.E8A05115@twinspot.net> Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 22:32:52 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> CC: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: sieve draft References: <199711010202.DAA00249@waxbill.twinspot.net> <971031213536.ZM30981@candle.brasslantern.com> <327A748D.46115C78@twinspot.net> <971101201941.ZM3066@candle.brasslantern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Bart Schaefer wrote: > It's certainly possible to handle it that way. However, note that there > are nonzero costs associated with accepting delivery. If the typical > message to my hypothetical support service contains a many-megabyte > coredump (and I have direct experience with users who mail such things > to support addresses), I'd much rather refuse delivery altogether than > have to consume the bandwidth to accept the message and then discard it. I can see your point. But in order to avoid consuming bandwidth you need to apply the filtering rules as part of SMTP negotiation. The information available at that point will limit your filtering rules to operate on the addresses of the originator and the recipients as negotiated by MAIL and RCPT, and possibly some peer information. I presume that you want to apply one set of rules for each recipient, after first resolving the address for local delivery, but before the point where the SMTP server have given a response to the RCPT command. Am I correct? If this is the case, a rule that resolve into an action other than a simple "550 command rejected for policy reasons", has to be postponed until the SMTP session has been completed, including a "bounce" in the more reply-like fashion, since you need the complete message or at least the message header section to complete the action. I can sense an implementation obstacle here. On the other hand, I have never tried to implement a complete MTA. So who am I to write on people's noses how to do things? ;-) -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> tel: +46-13-218-181 cel: +46-708-870-957 fax: +46-708-870-258 TwinSpot is a subsidiary of EuroNetics Operation in Sweden Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id UAA25900 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 20:20:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from candle.brasslantern.com (schaefer@zagzig.zanshin.com [206.155.48.241]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA25895 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 20:20:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA03067; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 20:19:42 -0800 From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@brasslantern.com> Message-Id: <971101201941.ZM3066@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 20:19:41 -0800 In-Reply-To: <327A748D.46115C78@twinspot.net> Comments: In reply to Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> "Re: sieve draft" (Nov 1, 11:07pm) References: <199711010202.DAA00249@waxbill.twinspot.net> <971031213536.ZM30981@candle.brasslantern.com> <327A748D.46115C78@twinspot.net> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Subject: Re: sieve draft Cc: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk On Nov 1, 11:07pm, Tomas Fasth wrote: } Subject: Re: sieve draft } } Bart Schaefer wrote: } > } > ... an email customer support service. Customers with paid support can } > legitimately send mail to support@supporters.com. All other messages } > sent to that address are bounced, with the suggestion that they pay up. } } IMO, your example above is not a subject for delivery refusal. [...] } I suggest that a good design would be, from the MTA's point of view, } to regard the message as being successfully delivered to the maildrop, } which happens to have a service associated to it, a service which then } decides by it's own access control whether to accept the service request } or not. It's certainly possible to handle it that way. However, note that there are nonzero costs associated with accepting delivery. If the typical message to my hypothetical support service contains a many-megabyte coredump (and I have direct experience with users who mail such things to support addresses), I'd much rather refuse delivery altogether than have to consume the bandwidth to accept the message and then discard it. My point is not that this is the best or only way to manage such a system, merely that the bounce capability provides a useful alternative. Whether to permit it should be an administrative decision of the MTA maintainer, not a decision of the language design -- unless there are other technical reasons to omit it from the language. Hmm; having written that, I see that as presently written the sieve draft assumes that the message has already been "accepted" and that the bounce action merely resends it via a DSN. In that case I agree that "bouncing" the message is much less interesting as a separate action. However, I'm not convinced that there aren't valid reasons to want to use a DSN rather than an MDN to describe what has occurred. } I would not recommend to make that kind of handling a business of the } MTA. It would only be confusing and even hard to administer and } maintain. Why would it be any harder to administer/maintain than a collection of individual services? Especially if there is simply a seive script to be associated with each such address. } > I subscribed to the fud-list@blather.com mailing list, but now I don't } > want it any more. I've sent a dozen unsubscribe requests, but nobody } > is managing the list and it keeps coming to me. I want to bounce the } > messages back to the (admittedly unresponsive) list admin address and } > to the postmaster@blather.com in hopes of getting their attention. } } Hmm. In this case I think your approach is unfriendly. Note that I'm assuming that repeated polite requests have failed. However, again it's not up to the language designers to decide what is or is not "friendly." } I do not consider that a good use of filtering. That is not a technical reason to leave the capability out of the language. } I suggest we begin by distinguish between message delivery and } message acceptance. By doing this we might be able to reach some } kind of consensus on what we are trying to achieve here. I don't think there's any disagreement on the terms, merely on when it is appropriate to refuse. And those are matters of opinion, not definition. } My point is that if we use this description as a model, message } delivery is just about to find the correct maildrop. That makes } the task of the MTA much less complicated. The name of this mailing list *is* ietf-mta-filters. Have we all decided that we're not talking about MTA-level filtering any more? -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id OAA23525 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 14:07:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from waxbill.twinspot.net (euronetics-001.euronetics.com [193.45.213.245] (may be forged)) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA23521 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 14:07:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinspot.net (bishop.twinspot.net [193.45.213.241]) by waxbill.twinspot.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA03470; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 23:07:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <327A748D.46115C78@twinspot.net> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 23:07:09 +0100 From: Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> Organization: EuroNetics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> CC: Tim Showalter <tjs@andrew.cmu.edu>, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: sieve draft References: <199711010202.DAA00249@waxbill.twinspot.net> <971031213536.ZM30981@candle.brasslantern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Precedence: bulk Bart Schaefer wrote: > > On Nov 1, 3:02am, Tomas Fasth wrote: > } > } What other than spam would be a subject for delivery refusal? > > Some examples: > > I run an email customer support service. Customers with paid support can > legitimately send mail to support@supporters.com. All other messages > sent to that address are bounced, with the suggestion that they pay up. > (No, I don't really run such a service. These are examples.) IMO, your example above is not a subject for delivery refusal. I regard it as a denial of service associated with a particular maildrop. I can easily imagine many kinds of commercial services similar to the example above. Each having different access control mechanisms on the same message store/maildrop site. The question is, regarding that each automated maildrop service might have it's own access control, where are all this best handled? I suggest that a good design would be, from the MTA's point of view, to regard the message as being successfully delivered to the maildrop, which happens to have a service associated to it, a service which then decides by it's own access control whether to accept the service request or not. I would not recommend to make that kind of handling a business of the MTA. It would only be confusing and even hard to administer and maintain. > I subscribed to the fud-list@blather.com mailing list, but now I don't > want it any more. I've sent a dozen unsubscribe requests, but nobody > is managing the list and it keeps coming to me. I want to bounce the > messages back to the (admittedly unresponsive) list admin address and > to the postmaster@blather.com in hopes of getting their attention. But > that doesn't mean that everyone at my site thinks the fud-list is spam. Hmm. In this case I think your approach is unfriendly. Instead of taking the small annoyance of finding out the address of the admin and the postmaster, and send them a polite request of removal, you decide to bounce each and every message originating from that particular list. I do not consider that a good use of filtering. I do recognize a need of list management on the client side, but that is hardly done by using filtering technics alone. > I could come up with more, but they're mostly variations on one of those > two themes: (1) Only messages matching some criteria should be delivered, > and all others should get a bounce explaining why they were not; (2) some > source of mail not normally considered to be spam is for whatever reason > abusing a mailbox, and a bounce should be generated to notify the sender > of this unintentional abuse. I suggest we begin by distinguish between message delivery and message acceptance. By doing this we might be able to reach some kind of consensus on what we are trying to achieve here. My opinion is that a message ought to be regarded as delivered if the message have successfully reached the maildrop. Note that a maildrop can be more than just a simple file or a slot in a database. A maildrop can be the entry to another subsystem which might control the access to further processing or final storage. My point is that if we use this description as a model, message delivery is just about to find the correct maildrop. That makes the task of the MTA much less complicated. By delegating maildrop specific processing, for example message acceptance, to the subsystem beyond final delivery, you have, in my opinion, achieved a better modular approach to the messaging infrastructure. > Not true. For example, there may be a valid reason for some mailboxes > to reject all messages that do not have a digital signature, or that are > not encrypted using a particular public key. But the protocol doesn't > reveal whether the data is digitally signed or encrypted. Yes, there are reasons for rejecting certain messages depending on what context they are in. Yes, the protocol handler should not bother about digital signatures and such. But then, I regard neither of those things to be among a message transport agent's responsibilities. > A reply action is typically directed to addresses taken from the RFC822 > header of the message, e.g. the "From" or "Reply-To" fields. A bounce > is typically directed to the envelope sender, e.g. the SMTP "MAIL FROM" > address. I see. My interpretation of current internet standards in this area, is that the SMTP "MAIL FROM" address, also called the originator address or return-path, is recommended to only be used by the MTA for resolving non-deliveries and mail system failures. There are also RFC documents describing how such a "bounce" should be formatted. There seem to be a slight confusion between the SMTP type of bounce and your type of bounce. But then, I am asserting that your type of bounce is not really a bounce, but rather something that is in practice the same as a reply. There are even draft documents describing something called message disposition notifications. I think those can be used in such similar situations that have been described here and earlier. Further, I do not regard your use of return-path as conformant with current internet messaging practice. > There presently aren't many (if any) tools that are able to > make that distinction, because there are few MTA-level filtering tools; > almost all must run "post-delivery" without access to the SMTP envelope. Which is my point. There are reasons for running the filtering tools as "post-delivery". One is that since the filtering rules originates from an end user and therefore have unpredictable results, it's not a good idea to let those rules control the pre-delivery process. You can always argue that there is need for filtering rules that are centrally administred by the postmaster. But then, I assert that this might be a dangerous approach. Do you really want to do this? Slightest mistake in one of the rules will potentially affect all the maildrops on the site. Isn't it bad enough to have the sendmail.cf to worry about? ;-) > One purpose of the sieve language, as I understand it, is to enable the > user to intervene *before* the MTA delivers the message, thus making it > *possible* to have distinguished "bounce" and "reply" actions. The very idea of having individual users to dictate the behavior of the MTA is revolting to me. It even sounds outright dangerous. But then, I am sure that your cause is absolutely sincere. I only ask you to consider another approach of solving your problem. And there are many good uses for a filtering language like Sieve, although I disagree with your particular type of use. -- Hälsningar/Regards Tomas Fasth <tomas.fasth@twinspot.net> tel: +46-13-218-181 cel: +46-708-870-957 fax: +46-708-870-258
- sieve: vacation extension Tim Showalter
- Re: sieve: vacation extension Tim Showalter
- Re: sieve: vacation extension Chris Newman
- Re: sieve: vacation extension Chris Newman
- Re[2]: sieve: vacation extension Chris Bartram
- Re: sieve: vacation extension Tim Showalter
- Re: sieve: vacation extension Tomas Fasth
- Re[2]: sieve: vacation extension Chris Bartram
- Possible vacation notice approaches (was: Re: sie… Tomas Fasth
- Re: sieve: vacation extension Paul Falstad
- Re: sieve: vacation extension Ned Freed
- Re: sieve: vacation extension Paul Falstad
- Re: sieve: vacation extension Tim Showalter