Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:22:33 -0400

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title		: Sieve -- IMAP flag Extension
	Author(s)	: A. Melnikov
	Filename	: draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt
	Pages		: 7
	Date		: 2003-6-30
	
Recent discussions have shown that it is desirable to set different
[IMAP] flags on message delivery.  This can be done, for example,
by a Sieve interpreter that works as a part of a Mail Delivery
Agent.
This document describes an extension to the Sieve mail filtering
language for setting [IMAP] flags. The extension allows to set both
[IMAP] system flags and [IMAP] keywords.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-05.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: "Nigel Swinson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:11:09 +0100

3.1. Addflag action

- Duplicates are allowed and ignored?  Do we need to specify that we just
ignore them, or should our "list" maintain both entries?  I see in 4 and 6
there is a note about this issue, but perhaps it would help to have a
comment in this section that "duplicate removal" is seen as optional.

3.2 Removeflag Action

- Example contains :globalflags , But :globalflags isn't defined anywhere in
the document.  I remember it from the old revisions, did it get dropped?  If
so this example is now out of date...

- If duplicate removal is "optional", then what happens if we have two
flags, and we are asked to removeflag that flag.  We remove both
occurrences?  Would it perhaps just be easier to say that we MUST do
duplicate removal during addflags?  Both removal of existing duplicates
before we add the new flags, and any new duplicates created after adding the
flags?

- Don't understand what "Multiple occurrences of removeflag are treated
additively." means.  Does that mean multiple removeflag actions are treated
additively, or does it refer to the content of the flags and answer my
previous question about when multiple flags exist with the same name?

10. Extended Example

- Extended example contains a few "add" actions that I think should be
"addflags".

- Suggest that you don't use a variable name of  "flags" in the example, as
it may confuse.  Maybe "MyFlags" or something might be safer?

Cheers

Nigel

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:02:24 -0600

> comment in this section that "duplicate removal" is seen as optional.

Actually I would like to give implementations freedom of choice.

> the document.  I remember it from the old revisions, did it get dropped?

Yes. Fixed now. Thank you.

> If so this example is now out of date...
>
> occurrences?

Yes, that was my indent.

>  Would it perhaps just be easier to say that we MUST do

The former. I've changed the text a bit to make it more clear.

> - Extended example contains a few "add" actions that I think should be

Correct.

> it may confuse.  Maybe "MyFlags" or something might be safer?

Sure.

Alexey
__________________________________________
Home Page: http://orthanc.ab.ca/mel
IETF standard
related pages: http://orthanc.ab.ca/mel/devel/Links.html
__________________________________________