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

NED+mta-filters@mauve.mrochek.com Fri, 03 May 2013 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <NED+mta-filters@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: sieve@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sieve@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B751321F925A for <sieve@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2013 14:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RSUTGGsnMWmR for <sieve@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2013 14:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 893CA21F91BC for <sieve@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 May 2013 14:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OT7OMRQFGG005239@mauve.mrochek.com> for sieve@ietf.org; Fri, 3 May 2013 14:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OT3BOFFH80000054@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for sieve@ietf.org; Fri, 3 May 2013 14:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: NED+mta-filters@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01OT7OMQCKBE000054@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 14:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 03 May 2013 10:40:02 +0200" <518377E2.3000307@rename-it.nl>
References: <20130407160743.19463.39851.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5161A34D.3040805@rename-it.nl> <5165D08D.4040404@rename-it.nl> <01OSWJ6MW7KE000054@mauve.mrochek.com> <518377E2.3000307@rename-it.nl>
To: Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl>
Cc: Sieve mailing list <sieve@ietf.org>, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Subject: Re: [sieve] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bosch-sieve-duplicate-02.txt
X-BeenThere: sieve@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIEVE Working Group <sieve.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sieve>, <mailto:sieve-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sieve>
List-Post: <mailto:sieve@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sieve-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve>, <mailto:sieve-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 21:30:53 -0000

> 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