Subject: draft-segmuller-sieve-relation-01.txt

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 14:59:44 -0400

Wolfgang,

I'm currently implementing this extension in CMU-Sieve, and I have a
couple of questions:

1. Do you have a -02 draft with the changes previously discussed on the
list?

2. Why is the relational-match a quoted string instead of an unquoted
token, ie:

	if header :value lt "subject" "foo" ...

3. Is specifying a :comparator for a :count match required, or should we
assume "i;ascii-numeric" if not specified otherwise (although this
contradicts the base spec?  If so, should require "relational" then
imply require "i;ascii-numeric"?

Ken
-- 
Kenneth Murchison     Oceana Matrix Ltd.
Software Engineer     21 Princeton Place
716-662-8973 x26      Orchard Park, NY 14127
--PGP Public Key--    http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp

---

From: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 May 2002 16:37:30 -0600

> 	if header :value lt "subject" "foo" ...

I haven't read Wolfgang's document (recently, if at all), but this would
require an extension to the grammar in the base spec.

Tim

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 15:48:07 -0700 (PDT)

> require an extension to the grammar in the base spec.

Concur. As such, I think we need to retain the quotes.

				Ned

---

From: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 May 2002 16:58:38 -0600

> Concur. As such, I think we need to retain the quotes.

Alternatively we could have a :lt tagged argument (or even :value :lt,
but I don't really like that, and there's a SHOULD NOT against it, I
think).

My apologies if this has been shot down already.

Tim

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:15:11 -0700 (PDT)

> My apologies if this has been shot down already.

I don't especially care as long as we don't change the underlying syntax.
OTOH, I see little difference between :value "lt" and :lt. Given that the
former is already in use, I'd suggest sticking to it.

				Ned

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 21:50:10 -0400

> require an extension to the grammar in the base spec.

Yup.  My bad (should've assumed it was something obvious).

Tim, consider this your quarterly reminder to do something with vacation
;)

Ken