Subject: sieve upload/download mechanisms

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 14:16:48 -0400

I'd like to know what mechanisms server vendors have implemented for sieve 
script upload/download.

I'm aware of systems that use ACAP, HTTP, FTP, LDAP, and CMU's managesieve. 
Are there any other means of doing this? Would it be possible for server 
vendors to describe in some detail how their implementations work for 
interoperability? I wonder if there should be some BCP document about this?

The problem is that as a client vendor I need to know how to get scripts 
uploaded/downloaded to the various servers. I'd rather not have 
half-a-dozen variants to deal with, but that looks as if it is the case 
right now.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 Aug 2000 21:36:10 +0200

Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]> writes:

> I'd like to know what mechanisms server vendors have implemented for
> sieve script upload/download.
> 
> I'm aware of systems that use ACAP, HTTP, FTP, LDAP, and CMU's
> managesieve. Are there any other means of doing this? 

My (unreleased) sieve support for a mail client I'm working on uses
CMU's "installsieve".  I'm not sure if that's the same as managesieve.

(http://www.nada.kth.se/datorer/e-post/sieve-at-nada.shtml describes
usage of installsieve to some detail)

> I'd rather not have half-a-dozen variants to deal with, but that
> looks as if it is the case right now.

Yes. :-/

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 09:58:45 -0700

At 2:16 PM -0400 8/17/00, Cyrus Daboo wrote:

>  I'd like to know what mechanisms server vendors have implemented 
> for sieve script upload/download.

Our prototype code uses the Sieve ACAP profile, which is very easy to 
implement in clients and servers (and upwards-compatible with full 
ACAP).  I've got preliminary code to integrate this into Qpopper.

> managesieve. Are there any other means of doing this? Would it be 
> possible for server vendors to describe in some detail how their 
> implementations work for interoperability? I wonder if there should 
> be some BCP document about this?

You left out email, which I've been told will be supported in some servers.

I think this should be standardized.  A BCP would work if the 
mechanism is an unmodified existing one, otherwise I think a 
standards-track document is needed.

>
>  The problem is that as a client vendor I need to know how to get 
> scripts uploaded/downloaded to the various servers. I'd rather not 
> have half-a-dozen variants to deal with, but that looks as if it is 
> the case right now.

Exactly.