Re: [sieve] On "reject" and :fcc

Bron Gondwana <> Tue, 17 January 2017 23:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57087129516 for <>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 15:29:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=dlDZmqrG; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=a3Z107IM
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jtdMnfLV5Wff for <>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 15:29:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA6AF129445 for <>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 15:29:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6464520840; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 18:29:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web3 ([]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 17 Jan 2017 18:29:08 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=2vO4OFRjUBHcn+FFgJmU9TpVhy s=; b=dlDZmqrGqryfBFHh3RdEyJkL21KGqRp4sLqSrlukQcExAtrxzxLM8a53f1 U1d4PgJvN4BPC92oku6pik+B5ep0wRiBzndEAzJh16f+L4NOzf+SF38H5wpNaz6/ +vbmEWEFFPFoAHEnkIA37uNEmUHrSjjGA2bTjoSow3XDou3jw=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=2v O4OFRjUBHcn+FFgJmU9TpVhys=; b=a3Z107IMSwb03AB4eZsHaprw6b8mQa9wJ3 GXca0U7Oc3ON1+o0Q4692hydCTdrGTNsKKRRlT7aID5ZxnnjWZIQis0GoNdHaU5k D9m5ug8DiUG0g1F+EfFSM+THdJC9nTLNSMYgSYKWiGj8nOodPcEwS7J8J7/8N3t7 swcIAlmmo=
X-ME-Sender: <xms:xKh-WEGAo0bWox__nK4lWORKrCwzNKq5yp8-026Iu2Jaz0LVmLHo-g>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 40EE89EEF7; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 18:29:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <>
From: Bron Gondwana <>
To: Ned Freed <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Mailer: Webmail Interface - ajax-fd047210
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:29:08 +1100
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [sieve] On "reject" and :fcc
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIEVE Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 23:29:10 -0000

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017, at 10:04, Ned Freed wrote:
> > I wasn't on the list until just now, but it's one of my users who requested :fcc or similar.
> > > > A vendor that uses Cyrus IMAP has some customers that would like to have
> > > > copies of outgoing Sieve-generated messages (e.g. reject, vacation)
> > > > stored in their Sent mailbox.  We could obviously do this with a user
> > > > configurable option, but I was thinking of extending Sieve to support a
> > > > :fcc <mailbox> option on reject, vacation and any new actions where it
> > > > might apply.  The option could also leverage
> > > > draft-bosch-sieve-special-use to do something like :fcc "\\Sent"
> > > I see no problem for notify or vacation, but there's a serious semantics issue
> > > with reject - when you reject a message you are saying, "I didn't receive" this
> > > message". If you implement an action where you do in fact receive the message,
> > > albeit as a part of a DSN, you're essentially lying about what you did.
> > >
> > > Accurate information about who actually received what is especially important
> > > in environments with compliance archiving requirements. I don't look forward to
> > > explaining how a reject ended up being a keep.
> > >
> > > 				Ned
> > So don't lie if you don't want to lie.
> No, you don't lie because you care about user experience, not violating
> the least astonishment principle, etc.
> > I see things the other way around, if you want to
> > reject something then you want to reject it, but you might also want to keep a copy
> > of every email that's been sent out of the system on your behalf.
> Then keep a record of the rejection for the user, as opposed to keeping a copy
> of the message that was rejected. Indeed, if you're going to keep track
> of all rejections you have to allow for this in order to deal with
> rejections that occur before the message transferred.

OK, I see where the misunderstanding has come from. What I'm proposing is keeping a copy of the rejection. Basically the user wants a copy of every email sent on their behalf.

> > If your environment has compliance archiving requirements, then don't let users do
> > that.  If you're not allowed to keep copies of reject emails, then don't keep a copy of
> > them.
> > It's quite possible to set up an environment where every email going out of the organisation
> > gets archived completely independent of the sieve engine, in which case you'd still be keeping
> > copies of outbound rejects.  Not even allowing this in sieve doesn't change the fact that people
> > might want to lie and not everybody has compliance archiving requirements.
> You're now conflating all sorts of different things: Informing users of
> rejections as opposed to revealing message content, outgoing rejections, which
> have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand, and retaining messages
> at the system level, which again has nothing to do with what's being
> proposed here.
> The issue here is simple: The :fcc mechanism on reject provides a way for your
> *users* to lie to other *users* and say that they haven't received a message
> when in fact they have. If you don't see how this can become extremely
> problematic, I'm afraid there's no point in further discussion.

So as discovered above, we're talking past each other. I just want to keep a copy of the rejection that was sent out by sieve on the user's behalf.

  Bron Gondwana