Re: [sieve] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bosch-sieve-duplicate-02.txt

[[e-mail]]

> Op 4/25/2013 11:44 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
> >> One other thing: we recently defined this great new Sieve use-case
> >> called IMAPSieve. Is there any application imaginable for the duplicate
> >> test in this context, i.e. do we want to allow it there? Either way, I
> >> think we should state its applicability explicitly.
> >
> > I think there are legitimate use-cases, but it's also incredibly easy
> > to misuse
> > in this context.
> >
> > The basic problem is that moving messages around in IMAP doesn't carry
> > with it
> > any sort of inherent special semantic and people move messages around
> > for all
> > sorts of reasons (or for no real reason at all). This is quite unlike
> > message
> > delivery.
> >
> > So, for example, you could define a Sieve in IMAP to prevent, say, the
> > inclusion of a second copy of the same message in a given folder. But bad
> > things are going to happen if, say, you forget the filter is there and
> > move
> > some of the messages out and back in a couple of times.
> >
> > We'd have to extend the semantics of the extension substantiantially
> > to take
> > care of this, and even if we were to do that actually using it would be
> > very tricky indeed.
> >
> > Since I see the main benefit of this extension as how simple it makes
> > duplicate checks in Sieve, this usage makes me very nervous, so nervous
> > that I could certainly accept a "NOT RECOMMENDED" label for this case.

> Yes, I agree with that.

> BTW, any further comments on the document as it is now? More thoughts on
> the ':last' issue?

No, not really. I think this draft is sufficiently mature at this point
that we should try and get it on track to become an RFC.

Barry and/or Pete, would it make sense to progress this through the appsawg?
I'd be happy to do the sheparding work.

				Ned