Subject: [sieve] require [""]

From: Дилян Палаузов <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:19:14 +0100

Hello,

Is the following action valid, or not:

    require [""];

Със здраве,
   Дилян

---

From: Hannah Schroeter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:38:10 +0100

Hello!

>   require [""];

I don't think so, unless you have an extension with capability name ""
(empty string) which one might enable using
  require "";
or
  require [""];
See RFC 5228, sec. 3.2.

However, I'm not aware of any public extension with that name, and
vendor defined extensions would have names starting with "vnd.", cf. RFC
5228, sec. 6.1.

Kind regards,

Hannah(s).

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:42:35 -0800 (PST)

>     require [""];

That depends on what you mean by "valid". It's syntactically valid AFAIK so it
should not result in a syntax error. However, section 3.3 makes it pretty clear
that each argument to require is the name of an extension, and since there is
no registered extension with a blank name (and we'd probably never allow the
registration of such a thing), section 2.10.5 of RFC 5228 requires that the
script not execute. In our implementation at least while the error message is
different, there's not a lot of resulting behavior difference between a
syntactically invalid script and one that requires an unknown extension.

				Ned