Subject: Re: Request for agenda items for the Sieve WG meeting in Prague

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:59:59 +0000

Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> Please send your requests directly to me or just reply to this message.
>
> Also, I would like to ask people to let me know who is planning to 
> come to the Sieve WG meeting in Prague. (Ignore this, if you've 
> already told me).

As nobody has sent me any proposals, here is my suggestion:

Document status review (5 min)
Sieve Notify WGLC issues (15 min)
Sieve Notify Mailto issues  (30 min)
Sieve MIME Loops (30 min)
Other documents:
- Mailbox metadata access (20 min)
- Externally stored lists* (10 min)
- Environment, date-time, ... (10 min)

* - I have not submitted this one yet, but I can describe the proposal I
was discussing with Alexandros Vellis.

If there is any spare time left at the end of the meeting we can also 
talk about draft-gulbrandsen-collation-basic-XX.txt. Even though it is 
not a WG document, the  Sieve WG is probably the best place to discuss it.

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 12:47:39 -0800 (PST)

I have revised the vacation, date, environment, and ihave drafts. They
are available here:

  ftp://mail.apps.ietf.org/sievedate.{txt,html,xml}
  ftp://mail.apps.ietf.org/sieveenvironment.{txt,html,xml}
  ftp://mail.apps.ietf.org/sieveihave.{txt,html,xml}
  ftp://mail.apps.ietf.org/sievevacation.{txt,html,xml}

IMO the sieve date draft is ready for last call.

I split environment and ihave into separate documents so they can proceed with
different statuses should the need arise. I also added a new notify extension
to the environment document - it does the obvious with SMTP NOTIFY  parameters.

Vacation is a done deal but I wanted to update the references and the IANA
registration template.

I submitted the revisions of date and vacation to the drafts repository.
Splitting environment and ihave reset them to -00 so they cannot be submitted
right now. I will do so once the gate for new drafts reopens.

				Ned

---

From: Dilyan Palauzov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 23:33:58 +0100

Hallo,

   I have a small question for the environment test: wouldn't it be  
simpler to immitate the behaviour with variables:

   If the users want to check for envirnoment property, they include a  
well-known file (e.g. system), which imports the relevant information,  
which is the same the current environment, and then the sieve-scripts  
use it as they want.

   The advantage of this simpler approach would be, that the  
implementations need not be changed, script-generating utilities  
neither, and the sieve language is in fact not extended, but is more  
powerful.

   Opinions?
   Greetings,
     Дилян

----- End message from [email-masked] -----

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:51:35 -0800 (PST)

> which is the same the current environment, and then the sieve-scripts

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: You're talking about at a minumum supporting some kind of
include mechanism, not to mention the variables extension itself. Include
processing is quite complex and difficult to get right; we have to even agree
on a model for it, and even if we do manage to do that eventually there are
likely to be a variety of naming issues that will make portability an issue.

The main point of environment is to be able to write more portable scripts.
Conflating such checks with an extnesion that by its nature is likely to have
portability issues is a seriously losing proposition.

And as a purely operational matter, even if we implement an include mechanism
(can't say for sure if we would or not - it will depend on the semantics), our
customers are unlikely to enable it given their preference for standalone
scripts stored in LDAP. (This is not my personal preference at all , BTW - I
actually dislike this use of LDAP.)

>    Opinions?

I think doing this with variables and includes is actually quite a bit more
complex and almost certainlyt less portable.

				Ned

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:47:17 -0400

Kinda late reply here, sorry...

> complex and almost certainlyt less portable.

Even further than that, the suggestion assumes that the environment is 
static.  The default environment items are, but future extension items 
might not be.  In particular, I'm adding four environment items in 
draft-ietf-lemonade-imap-sieve-02: the type of event that triggered the 
script, the mailbox that the message is in or will be stored in, and so 
on.  That's not static info that can be "included".

Barry

--
Barry Leiba, STSM, Internet Messaging Technology  ([email-masked])
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba
http://www.research.ibm.com/spam