Subject: [sieve] Implementations of sieve-include

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 16:53:17 -0400

Anyone who's aware of existing implementations of sieve-include,
please post here.

Barry

---

From: Rob Siemborski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 13:57:46 -0700

I believe this is implemented in Cyrus sieve, but its been a long time since
I've looked.

-Rob

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Barry Leiba <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> sieve mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve
>

-- 
Rob Siemborski        |     PGP:0x5CE32FCC    |     [email-masked]
Software Engineer     |                       |            650-623-6925

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:41:03 -0700 (PDT)

We don't support Sieve include. We use a multiple Sieve approach instead which,
while done entirely independently of Jutta Degener's draft on the topic, ended
up having almost identical semantics.

We may consider adding support at some point in the longer term, but there are
a LOT of issues that would have to be worked out first.

				Ned

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 18:27:14 -0400

> a LOT of issues that would have to be worked out first.

Issues with your server (etc), or issues with the sieve-include draft ?

Barry

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:50:06 -0700 (PDT)

> Issues with your server (etc), or issues with the sieve-include draft ?

Both. The draft is essentialy silent on the issue of how conflicting actions
performed by different included scripts are handled, and I don't think that's a
viable approach. But without implementation experience I cannot say what the
best approach to fixing it would be. I am, however, pretty confident that a
straight implementation of the semantics the draft calls for is a complete
nonstarter for us.

The main implementation-specific problem is that we make a distinction between
system-level and user-level scripts. THis is an absolutely essential
distinction for us, but fitting it into the include model is very nontrivial
because it gets down to the basic semantic issue of whether include is
essentially syntactic or semantic in nature. THe draft tries to allow both, but 
that's not viable for us either.

				Ned

---

From: Stephan Bosch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:32:43 +0200

> Anyone who's aware of existing implementations of sieve-include,

Yes, I've built one. It's part of the Pigeonhole Sieve plugin for the 
Dovecot IMAP server.

http://pigeonhole.dovecot.org/

Regards,

Stephan.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:04:27 -0400

> The draft is essentialy silent on the issue of how conflicting actions

Do you think that means one of these?:
1. The document isn't ready to go and needs more work.
2. The document should be published as Experimental for now.
3. The document is ready for Proposed Standard, but may need a rev at PS later.

Barry

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 12:07:10 -0700 (PDT)

> 3. The document is ready for Proposed Standard, but may need a rev at PS later.

I don't see much point in delaying publication - as I say, I don't know
how to address the issues without axtually implementing it and seeing
how it works in practice, and that's not something I can do right now.

I hadn't considered publication as experimental as an option. I suppose that's
what I'd prefer, but I also have no issue with standards track. We need to
get past the notion that publication as propsed is the final step in the
standards process.

				Ned