Subject: new versions of the drafts

From: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 May 2000 14:37:05 -0700

Due to the changes to the drafts, I'm re-submitting them.  I will try
and last-call them no less (and not much more) than 24 hours after they
appear in the Internet-Drafts repository.

In the meantime, please take a look at them.  There are very few
changes, all of which have been advertised on the list except one.
(I cleaned up a little bit of text in section 6.3 of the Sieve spec.)

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~tjs/sieve.txt
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~tjs/sieve-vacation.txt

Thanks again.

Tim

Date: 8 May 2000 14:37:05 -0700
From: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: new versions of the drafts
Sender: [email-masked]

Due to the changes to the drafts, I'm re-submitting them.  I will try
and last-call them no less (and not much more) than 24 hours after they
appear in the Internet-Drafts repository.

In the meantime, please take a look at them.  There are very few
changes, all of which have been advertised on the list except one.
(I cleaned up a little bit of text in section 6.3 of the Sieve spec.)

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~tjs/sieve.txt
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~tjs/sieve-vacation.txt

Thanks again.

Tim

Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 20:48:06 -0400
From: Matthew Wall <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: website updated
Sender: [email-masked]

I've minimally updated the website to get the drafts up to date.

Still looking for any info and/or links to Sieve implementations. Please 
email me with yours! Critical mass, etc. etc.

http://www.cyrusoft.com/sieve

ta,

- matt

To: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Cc: Gregory Sereda <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Re: last chance before last call on sieve and vacation
From: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
Date: 05 May 2000 16:53:34 -0700
Lines: 26
Sender: [email-masked]

Randall Gellens <[email-masked]> writes:

> At 12:23 PM -0400 5/3/00, Gregory Sereda wrote:
> 
> >   ... and never send the same message to someone twice unless the :days
> >       specified in the vacation message has been exceeded.
> 
> I like it.

It strikes me that this is duplicating requirements more clearly and
completely stated elsewhere in this document.  I don't think the text on
how to do it was clear, though.

        If a sieve script changes, implementations MAY reset the records
        of who has been responded to and when they have been responded
        to.  Alternatively, implementations can store records of who has
        received which message, perhaps by storing a hash of the message
        and the recipient.

I'm pretty sure I can add more words there, but I'm not sure it would
help.  I don't know that it's worth specifying the algorithm, but
perhaps it is.

Is this an improvement?

Tim

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 11:21:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: last chance before last call on sieve and vacation
To: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Cc: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]

> In the Vacation draft:

> >  Alternatively, scripts can store records of who has received which
> > message, and never send a message to someone twice.

> I think this should be "implementations can store", since there is no
> facility in Sieve itself for storing this info.

> >  "Vacation" MUST NOT respond to a message unless the user's email
> > address is in the "To" or "Cc" line of the original message.

> Shouldn't the "Bcc" header be permitted, as well?  Some mailers (not
> many, I'll admit) generate a "Bcc" header.  If you have vacation set
> and I use one of these mailers to send mail to your buddy, and I bcc
> you, I should get a vacation notice.

Good point. I support making this change.

> In "3.7. Restricting Replies to Automated Processes", I'd suggest
> also saying that implementations MUST NOT respond to mail that has
> any header fields which start with "List-".

I'd be more comfortable with a SHOULD NOT.

				Ned

From: "Woodhouse, Gregory J." <[email-masked]>
To: "'Gregory Sereda'" <[email-masked]>, Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>, Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>, Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: RE: last chance before last call on sieve and vacation
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 11:48:40 -0500 
Sender: [email-masked]

We use an M based mail program called VA Mailman to distribute software
updates. Occasionally, a message that has already been sent will be purged
from the target system and it will have to be resent. Unfortunately, the
other system will have recorded that it has already sent message #nnnnn to
domain wherever.va.gov, and so it will not resend the message. Before this
problem was addressed, it was necessary to manually copy the message and
then send the copy. This situation arises because we store all messages in a
single database and each recipient on the local system simply stores a
reference to the message, and the message ID is the same for everyone. Now,
I'm not saying this necessrily the right way to do things, but it is an
example of how things can break when the policy of not resending the "same"
message is enforced a little too aggressively (or, perhaps more to the
point, the definition of sameness is too exacting).

===
Gregory Woodhouse <[email-masked]>
Financial Product Line
+1 415 744 6362
"Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is
about telescopes." -- E.W. Dijkstra

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory Sereda [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 9:23 AM
To: Randall Gellens; Randall Gellens; Tim Showalter;
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: last chance before last call on sieve and vacation

At 08:54 AM 5/3/00 -0700, Randall Gellens wrote:
>
>... and never send a message to someone twice unless the :days
>  specified in the vacation message has been exceeded or the text to 
>be sent has changed.

The wording "a message" implies "the same message".  Since the sentance
is getting a little long, the editor may consider this wording...

 ... and never send the same message to someone twice unless the :days
     specified in the vacation message has been exceeded.

Greg Sereda
AT&T Labs

Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 09:35:26 -0700
To: Gregory Sereda <[email-masked]>, Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>, Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: last chance before last call on sieve and vacation
Sender: [email-masked]

At 12:23 PM -0400 5/3/00, Gregory Sereda wrote:

>   ... and never send the same message to someone twice unless the :days
>       specified in the vacation message has been exceeded.

I like it.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might
be, and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's
logic!"

Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 12:23:07 -0400
To: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>, Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>, Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
From: Gregory Sereda <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: last chance before last call on sieve and vacation
Sender: [email-masked]

At 08:54 AM 5/3/00 -0700, Randall Gellens wrote:
>
>... and never send a message to someone twice unless the :days
>  specified in the vacation message has been exceeded or the text to 
>be sent has changed.

The wording "a message" implies "the same message".  Since the sentance
is getting a little long, the editor may consider this wording...

 ... and never send the same message to someone twice unless the :days
     specified in the vacation message has been exceeded.

Greg Sereda
AT&T Labs

Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 08:54:18 -0700
To: Gregory Sereda <[email-masked]>, Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>, Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: last chance before last call on sieve and vacation
Sender: [email-masked]

At 9:04 AM -0400 5/3/00, Gregory Sereda wrote:

>   ... and never send a message to someone twice unless the :days
>      specified in the vacation message has been exceeded.

Or

... and never send a message to someone twice unless the :days
  specified in the vacation message has been exceeded or the text to 
be sent has changed.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
I worry that the person who thought up Muzak may be thinking up
something else.
  --Lily Tomlin

Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 09:25:59 -0400
To: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
From: Gregory Sereda <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: last chance before last call on sieve and vacation
Sender: [email-masked]

Tim,

Regarding extended sieve example on page 38...

   #
   # Keep all messages to or from people in my company
   #
   elsif anyof address :domain :is ["From", "To"] "company.com"
           {
           keep;               # keep in "In" folder
           }

This is a syntax error.  Either remove the "anyof", or enclose the
test list within ( ... )

In the revisions since draft 7, the "anyof" was inserted.

Greg Sereda
AT&T Labs

Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 09:04:42 -0400
To: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>, Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
From: Gregory Sereda <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: last chance before last call on sieve and vacation
Sender: [email-masked]

At 09:56 PM 5/2/00 -0700, Randall Gellens wrote:
>In the Vacation draft:
>
>>  Alternatively, scripts can store records of who has received which 
>> message, and never send a message to someone twice.
>
>I think this should be "implementations can store", since there is no 
>facility in Sieve itself for storing this info.

Another minor point, "Never say never".  More correctly...

    ... and never send a message to someone twice unless the :days
    specified in the vacation message has been exceeded.

Greg Sereda
AT&T Labs

Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 21:56:22 -0700
To: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: last chance before last call on sieve and vacation
Sender: [email-masked]

In the Vacation draft:

>  Alternatively, scripts can store records of who has received which 
> message, and never send a message to someone twice.

I think this should be "implementations can store", since there is no 
facility in Sieve itself for storing this info.

>  "Vacation" MUST NOT respond to a message unless the user's email 
> address is in the "To" or "Cc" line of the original message.

Shouldn't the "Bcc" header be permitted, as well?  Some mailers (not 
many, I'll admit) generate a "Bcc" header.  If you have vacation set 
and I use one of these mailers to send mail to your buddy, and I bcc 
you, I should get a vacation notice.

In "3.7. Restricting Replies to Automated Processes", I'd suggest 
also saying that implementations MUST NOT respond to mail that has 
any header fields which start with "List-".

>  Vacation does not affect the implicit keep.

This might be more clear if it said "Vacation, by itself, still 
requires the implicit keep."  I'm not sure, though.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
If you can't be a good example, at least be a horrible warning.

Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 23:40:32 -0400
From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Organization: AT&T Laboratories
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: last chance before last call on sieve and vacation
Sender: [email-masked]

In other words, THIS is the list last call. :-)

	Tony

Tim Showalter wrote:
> 
> Matthew Wall <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> > > I intend to submit this for last call before the end of the week
> > > (hopefully Thursday).
> 
> > clarification, Tim -- do you mean List Last Call, or submitting it for
> > Extended Last Call to the IESG?
> 
> I mean an Extended Last Call to the IESG.  We're not a working group,
> so there really can't be a list last call.

Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 19:52:59 -0400
From: Matthew Wall <[email-masked]>
To: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: last chance before last call on sieve and vacation
Sender: [email-masked]

-- On Monday, May 1, 2000 4:42 PM -0700 the entity known as Tim Showalter 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

<begin quote>

> We're not a working group,
> so there really can't be a list last call.

<end quote>

To which Matthew Wall offers this response on Mon, 01 May 2000 19:52:29 
-0400:

Well, we can still do it if we feel like it 8-).

That said, I'm ready to move to IESG Extended Last Call.

- mw

To: Matthew Wall <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: last chance before last call on sieve and vacation
From: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
Date: 01 May 2000 16:42:43 -0700
Lines: 12
Sender: [email-masked]

Matthew Wall <[email-masked]> writes:

> > I intend to submit this for last call before the end of the week
> > (hopefully Thursday).

> clarification, Tim -- do you mean List Last Call, or submitting it for 
> Extended Last Call to the IESG?

I mean an Extended Last Call to the IESG.  We're not a working group,
so there really can't be a list last call.

Tim

Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 19:01:47 -0400
From: Matthew Wall <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
cc: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: last chance before last call on sieve and vacation
Sender: [email-masked]

-- On Monday, May 1, 2000 1:42 PM -0700 the entity known as Tim Showalter 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

<begin quote>

>  I intend to submit this
> for last call before the end of the week (hopefully Thursday).

<end quote>

To which Matthew Wall offers this response on Mon, 01 May 2000 19:01:22 
-0400:

clarification, Tim -- do you mean List Last Call, or submitting it for 
Extended Last Call to the IESG?

Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 13:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: last chance before last call on sieve and vacation
Sender: [email-masked]

Hi.  I'd like one more chance before last call to get any input on
Sieve and the vacation extension.  Please send any complaints out
before May 3, 5PM (PDT) with any complaints; I intend to submit this
for last call before the end of the week (hopefully Thursday).

Thanks!

Tim