[Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-hansen-sieve-loop-00.txt]

This was supposed to be announced to the mta-filters list by the I-D 
editor, but wasn't.

	Tony Hansen
	tony <at> att.com

From: This was supposed to be announced to the mta-filters list by the I-D editor, but wasn't. Tony Hansen tony <at> att.com <Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org>
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-hansen-sieve-loop-00.txt
Date: 2004-07-16 20:22:22 GMT

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title		: Sieve Extension: Bodypart Loops
	Author(s)	: T. Hansen
	Filename	: draft-hansen-sieve-loop-00.txt
	Pages		: 5
	Date		: 2004-7-16
	
The current Sieve language has no looping mechanism, a way to look at

lunch/bar bof for mta-filters?

Any interest in having a lunch bof or bar bof in San Diego to discuss 
the various sieve extensions that are currently extant?

I'd like to suggest meeting at lunchtime on Wednesday or Thursday.

	Tony Hansen
	tony <at> att.com

Vacation draft

I have two comments to the section security considerations:

Sending out an automated reply with "Re: " and the subject is dangerous.
Many mailing lists verify the mail address by sending a mail with a key
in the subject.  Simply replying to such a mail confirms you want to
subscribe to it.  If people use vacation, it is easy to subscribe them
to a spam list and prove that it *is* opt-in by keeping the confirmation
and throwing away the original faked subscription request.

Mail systems should be allowed to bypass the time if the database to
remember senders becomes too large.  I suggest to allow the implementation
to expire entries if the number of different senders becomes too big.
The draft could set a minimum database size. Say 100 or 1000 different
senders must be remembered, but implementations may store more.

As I noticed, the draft ist expired.  Any plans to bring it back?

Michael

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-hansen-sieve-loop-00.txt]

Hi Tony,

Just read your new I-Draft and it seems to be solving some of the same problems that the
draft-daboo-sieve-mime-00.txt draft is trying to solve, so it seems like the two should probably be
worked on together.  

The original draft is here:  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-daboo-sieve-mime-00.txt

But I made an alternative proposal in response that seemed to have a lot of support although was never
written up into a new draft.  You can read my response here and follow the replies:  http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/msg02238.html

My proposal for a HEADER-PART tagged argument to the header does mostly the same job as your part test with
:filename/:type/:subtype approach, and my :bodyparts optional argument does mostly the same job as
your for.every.part loop test.  However the proposal does not include facilities for
replace/delete/enclosing body parts.

I think my proposal allows significant extra message matching capabilities with less additional syntax,
so I think it would be good if we could go with testing syntax more along the lines of what has already been
proposed there.

Perhaps there's really two I-Drafts at play here, a written up version of my proposal for testing body
parts, and then an additional one specifying the ability to replace/delete/enclose body parts which
requires a "select" body part concept.  Maybe a foreach test, that is used instead of "if".  Then where you have:

   for.every.part {
       if anyof ( part :subtype :is "jpeg", part :filename :matches "*.jpg" {
           replace "Attachment removed by user filter";
       }
   }

Re: lunch/bar bof for mta-filters?

Tony Hansen wrote:

> Any interest in having a lunch bof or bar bof in San Diego to discuss 
> the various sieve extensions that are currently extant?
>
> I'd like to suggest meeting at lunchtime on Wednesday or Thursday. 

Sounds good, but I am only available for Wednesday lunch.

Alexey

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-hansen-sieve-loop-00.txt]

Nigel Swinson wrote:

> Hi Tony,
> 
> Just read your new I-Draft and it seems to be solving some of the 
> same problems that the draft-daboo-sieve-mime-00.txt draft is trying
> to solve, so it seems like the two should probably be worked on
> together.
 >
 > But I made an alternative proposal in response that seemed to have a
 > lot of support although was never written up into a new draft. You
 > can read my response here and follow the replies:
 > http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/msg02238.html

I agree - there is some overlap between our drafts, as well as with your 
ideas. I'll have to review the thread you pointed me to.

	Tony Hansen
	tony <at> att.com

Re: lunch/bar bof for mta-filters?

> Tony Hansen wrote:

> > Any interest in having a lunch bof or bar bof in San Diego to discuss
> > the various sieve extensions that are currently extant?
> >
> > I'd like to suggest meeting at lunchtime on Wednesday or Thursday.

> Sounds good, but I am only available for Wednesday lunch.

Wednesday lunch works for me.

				Ned

Re: Vacation draft

Hi Michael,

--On Friday, July 30, 2004 11:36 AM +0200 Michael Haardt 
<michael <at> freenet-ag.de> wrote:

> As I noticed, the draft ist expired.  Any plans to bring it back?

Unfortunately this document appears to be in a sorry state:

<https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=3116&rfc_flag=0>

We need to get this published. If Tim is unable to do the updates then we 
need to assign a new author and move it forward asap. I would be willing to 
do that if needs be.

--

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

Re: lunch/bar bof for mta-filters?

--On Friday, July 30, 2004 7:26 AM -0700 ned.freed <at> mrochek.com wrote:

>> Sounds good, but I am only available for Wednesday lunch.
>
> Wednesday lunch works for me.

That suits me too. I will shortly post a list of drafts and their status 
here so we can see what needs to be discussed.

--

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

Re: lunch/bar bof for mta-filters?

> Hi ned.freed <at> mrochek.com,

> --On Friday, July 30, 2004 7:26 AM -0700 ned.freed <at> mrochek.com wrote:

> >> Sounds good, but I am only available for Wednesday lunch.
> >
> > Wednesday lunch works for me.

> That suits me too. I will shortly post a list of drafts and their status
> here so we can see what needs to be discussed.

Random thought: Perhaps it is time to consider forming a sieve
working group. The goals of the group would be carefullly limited to:

(1) Progressing the base sieve specification to draft. (Note that this
    means no significant changes or additions.)

(2) Finishing various sieve I-Ds already on the table.

What do people think about the idea?

				Ned