I think the draft should say why it is needed, that is, why not just use
if address :contains :localpart ["to", "cc", "bcc"] "+foo"
Also, should the draft deal with the fact that not all systems use "+" as
the character which introduces subaddresses?
Randall Gellens wrote: > > I think the draft should say why it is needed, that is, why not just use > > if address :contains :localpart ["to", "cc", "bcc"] "+foo" The problem is that this will match both 'user+foo' and 'user+foobar' which we may not want. The :user and :detail options provide the same functionality as the :localpart and :domain options -- they all allow for exact matches on the various pieces of the address. Without having variables, the :detail option doesn't have much, if any use IMHO. But the :user option is valuable when people use detailed 'from' addresses. For example, if I want to do something with all messages from you, I'd use: if allof (address :user "from" "randy", address :domain "qualcomm.com") This will catch mail from you whether you use "randy", "randy+sieve", "randy+imap", etc. This being said, the best way to do this (and any other complex address match) is via the regex extension, eg: if address :regex "from" "randy(\\+.*)? <at> qualcomm.com" > Also, should the draft deal with the fact that not all systems use "+" as > the character which introduces subaddresses?(Continue reading)
Randall Gellens wrote: > > I think it's useful. You also bring up a good point, which is that > if a Sieve implementation supports userdetail, the ":user" portion > of an address does *not* include the detail. So, you think that I should continue work on the draft? Are you suggesting that the capability should be userdetail instead of subaddress? I really don't like subaddress and have been searching for something better. Do you have any problems with :user and :detail as the optional arguments? Suggestions for something better? Any suggested text for discussing different user/detail separators? Thanks, Ken -- -- Kenneth Murchison Oceana Matrix Ltd. Software Engineer 21 Princeton Place 716-662-8973 x26 Orchard Park, NY 14127 --PGP Public Key-- http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp
At 9:34 PM -0400 9/12/00, Ken Murchison wrote: > Randall Gellens wrote: >> >> I think it's useful. You also bring up a good point, which is that >> if a Sieve implementation supports userdetail, the ":user" portion >> of an address does *not* include the detail. > > So, you think that I should continue work on the draft? I think so. Anyone else? > Are you suggesting that the capability should be userdetail instead of > subaddress? I really don't like subaddress and have been searching for > something better. Doesn't much matter to me. I think "userdetail" may be more familiar to those who know what the feature is. > Do you have any problems with :user and :detail as the optional > arguments? Suggestions for something better? Works for me. > Any suggested text for discussing different user/detail separators? I'd probably have a new section between current 2 and 3, called "Definitions" or some such, and say something like: --------(Continue reading)
RSS Feed