Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sieve-spamtestbis-03.txt

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:30:26 -0400

Hi folks,
This new version of the spamtestbis document uses the recently suggested 
:count relational option to indicate whether an underlying test was 
performed or not, and as a result the previous method of return "untested" 
with :percent was eliminated.

Also I adopted many of the terminology changes suggested by Mark Mallett 
several months ago (thanks Mark).

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:03:00 -0700 (PDT)

> with :percent was eliminated.

I reviewed the change yesterday. Looks good to me.

				Ned

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:17:19 +0100

As there were some significant changes to the document, I would like to 
do another (1 week) WG Last Call on the document.
Please send you comments to the mailing list and/or directly to me 
before June 22nd 2006.

Thanks,
Alexey

---

From: "Mark E. Mallett" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:54:38 -0400

> Please send you comments to the mailing list and/or directly to me 

It looks good to me.

One mild thought: with the new :count thing, though, wouldn't that be the
preferred way of seeing if the test were done?  e.g. in 3.2.2:

   To determine whether the message was tested for spam or not, the
   preferred solution is to use the test without the ":percent"
   argument, testing for the normalized result value "0" as described in
   Section 3.2.1.

and a few other places and examples.

Also in 3.3, I think the second test in the example would read nicer
if it were an 'elsif' and not a plain 'if':

           if virustest :value "eq" :comparator "i;ascii-numeric" "0"
           {
               fileinto "INBOX.unclassified";
           }
 -->       if virustest :value "eq" :comparator "i;ascii-numeric" "4"
           {
               fileinto "INBOX.quarantine";
           }

not that it would cause different results, but it just strikes me as
more "pure" that way.  (picky, eh)

mm

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:10:21 -0700 (PDT)

> and a few other places and examples.

I certainly would support such a change.

> more "pure" that way.  (picky, eh)

Sounds good to me.

				Ned

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:11:19 -0400

Hi Mark,

> and a few other places and examples.

Well, I'm not sure we should 'bless' one way over the other. So how about 
replacing the above paragraph with:

---
   To determine whether the message was tested for spam or not, two options
   can be used:

   a) a test with or without the ":percent" argument and ":count" match 
type,
      testing for the value "0" as described in Section 3.1.

   b) a test without the ":percent" argument using the ":value" match type,
      testing for the normalized result value "0" as described in
      Section 3.2.1.
---

The two examples that follow illustrate use of these two so would not need 
to be changed.

Similar text can be added to the virustest description too.

Let me know what you think.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: "Mark E. Mallett" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:40:46 -0400

On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 08:11:19PM -0400, Cyrus Daboo wrote:

Hi,

>      testing for the normalized result value "0" as described in

That's fine with me- I'd probably prefer :count for its simplicity but
if we don't want to bless one or another, I won't squawk ..

BTW the description of the various "has not been tested" results means
that the implementation is required to be able to determine if a spam
test has been done.  I suppose it could also mean "could not determine
if the test has been done."  (which is mostly the same for script
purposes, but it is subtley different..)

mm

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:00:42 +0100

Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> As there were some significant changes to the document, I would like 
> to do another (1 week) WG Last Call on the document.

Has anybody but Mark and Ned reviewed the draft?

Please send replies directly to me.

Thanks,
Alexey