Filtering messages in MTAs

Ken Murchison | 13 Sep 2000 03:34

Re: draft-murchison-sieve-subaddress-01

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

headers

Alexey Melnikov | 17 Sep 2000 23:25

Re: draft-murchison-sieve-subaddress-01

Ken Murchison wrote:

> So, you think that I should continue work on the draft?

It definetely make sense and simplifies SIEVE scripts.
So I say "go ahead".

Alexey.

headers

ned.freed | 17 Sep 2000 23:33

Re: draft-murchison-sieve-subaddress-01

> Ken Murchison wrote:

> > So, you think that I should continue work on the draft?

> It definetely make sense and simplifies SIEVE scripts.
> So I say "go ahead".

Agreed.

				Ned

headers

Randall Gellens | 13 Sep 2000 04:06

Re: draft-murchison-sieve-subaddress-01

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)