Subject: Draft notes from Sieve BOF

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:29:25 -0500

Here's a draft of my slightly edited notes from the Sieve BOF last week.  
Comments about what I missed or misrepresented are welcome; post 'em here.

Barry

Notes
-----------------------------------------------
Matt says to kick Ned's ass when they see him, because he's late.
Matt reviews mailing list addresses, etc.
Matt reviews agenda.
- Don't want working group.
- Have draft charter, just in case.
- Want to get consensus at end of BOF about WG.

Tim explains syntax briefly.
Tim reviews open issues.
- Vacation in base spec or extension?
  reason for base: it's important -- to some, the very reason for having Sieve
  reason for extension: it's a long section; it provides a prototype for
    writing extensions
  consensus: do it as an extension
- Action interaction
  e.g. reject vs. keep/fileinto
  Proposal:
    discard is compatible with everything -- just cancels the default keep
    reject is incompatible with all but discard
    keep == fileinto "inbox"
  Discussion:
    add to spec: extensions should discuss incompatible actions
    discussion about extensions having to refer to other extensions, easy
       to get out of hand.
    discuss on mailing list for resolution
- Site limits on actions (number of forward addresses, for instance)
  Proposal:
    multiple reject MUST NOT
    at least one fileinto/keep MUST
    at least one redirect MUST
  Discussion
    redirect: no, remove
    exceeding limit causes a script error
- Require must be at beginning of script
- User-specified charset on outgoing msg
  Discussion:
    text may be MIME object?
    OK... put in switch: text or MIME
- Text will be added talking about errors in script

Other Discussion:
- Discussion about adding headers in redirect
  Want to add loop detection and received headers
  What about resent headers?
    Some say it's not user-initiated.
    Some consider that it *is* user-initiated.
  Consensus... Eliminate text about not adding headers
- Discussion about discarding messages, what to do with DSNs
  Take to mailing list
  
- Vacation extension
  Proposal:
    Vacation incompatible with reject & vacation.
    Does not cancel implicit keep.
    Remembering who was responded to is not just per address, but per 
       address per vacation command.
    If script changes, implementations MAY reset response memory.
  
  Also:
    Add req't for impl dependent list of addresses that vacation never 
       replies to,  List MUST include POSTMASTER, SHOULD include others.
  Discussion:
    Remove specific addresses, replace with general advice, refer to RFCs.
    Request to be very explicit about this, to avoid loops & annoyances
       calendar in vacation?  -- out of scope
    
Matt:
Proposes getting revision out in 3 weeks, for IETF last call (4 weeks).
Includes base & vacation.  Call for WG... unanimous: no.