From owner-ietf-mta-filters Mon Dec 15 10:17:19 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBFIHIib010096 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:17:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBFIHI2L010095 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:17:18 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from darius.cyrusoft.com (darius.cyrusoft.com [63.163.82.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBFIHHib010090 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:17:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from daboo@cyrusoft.com) Received: from ninevah.cyrusoft.com (ninevah.cyrusoft.com [63.163.82.9]) (authenticated bits=0) by darius.cyrusoft.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hBFIGqEG010932 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:16:53 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:17:16 -0500 From: Cyrus Daboo To: IETF MTA Filters Subject: vacation and address comparisons Message-ID: <30173.1071494236@ninevah.cyrusoft.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: The vacation action has an addresses parameter that can be used to indicate other addresses that belong to the current user. There is currently an ambiguity as to how address comparisons for that parameter should be done: are they case-sensitive or case-insensitive on the local part? Default base-spec SIEVE address comparisons are case-insensitive since i;ascii-casemap is used as the default comparator. I see several possibilities to this: 1) vacation address comparisons are implementation defined: implementations know whether they do case-sensitive or case-insensitive address matches on delivery so they pick the appropriate comparator. Some statement of that should be in the spec. 2) vacation addresses are explicitly defined either case-sensitive or case-insensitive on the local part - we have to pick which and state in the spec. 3) A new comparator argument is added to the addresses parameter to allow a comparator to be explicitly chosen - we would have to pick the default in the absence of that argument. Any comments on this? -- Cyrus Daboo From owner-ietf-mta-filters Mon Dec 15 14:02:17 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBFM2Hib020596 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:02:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBFM2HR6020595 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:02:17 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from pat.uio.no (IDENT:7411@pat.uio.no [129.240.130.16]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBFM2Fib020589 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:02:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kjetilho@ifi.uio.no) Received: from mail-mx2.uio.no ([129.240.10.30]) by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW0n7-0001Kq-St for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:02:13 +0100 Received: from rovereto.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.68.185]) by mail-mx2.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1AW0n1-0008Q7-44 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:02:07 +0100 Subject: Re: vacation and address comparisons From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme To: IETF MTA Filters In-Reply-To: <30173.1071494236@ninevah.cyrusoft.com> References: <30173.1071494236@ninevah.cyrusoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1071525727.2262.889.camel@rovereto.ifi.uio.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:02:08 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MailScanner-Information: This message has been scanned for viruses/spam. Contact postmaster@uio.no if you have questions about this scanning X-UiO-MailScanner: No virus found X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-4.9, required 12, BAYES_00 -4.90) Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 19:17, Cyrus Daboo wrote: > [good catch snipped] > I see several possibilities to this: > > 1) vacation address comparisons are implementation defined: implementations > know whether they do case-sensitive or case-insensitive address matches on > delivery so they pick the appropriate comparator. Some statement of that > should be in the spec. but the case sensitive system may have expanded the alias and forwarded it to a different host which isn't. > 2) vacation addresses are explicitly defined either case-sensitive or > case-insensitive on the local part - we have to pick which and state in the > spec. it would have to be case-sensitive, wouldn't it? it's possible to simulate case-insensitivity, however awkward it is, the reverse is not true. > 3) A new comparator argument is added to the addresses parameter to allow a > comparator to be explicitly chosen - we would have to pick the default in > the absence of that argument. I think this is the Correct(tm) solution. -- Kjetil T. From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Dec 17 07:12:53 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHFCrib078416 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:12:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHFCrTr078415 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:12:53 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from libertango.oryx.com (libertango.oryx.com [195.30.94.163]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHFCkib078407 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:12:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no) Message-Id: From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. Cc: Christof Drescher References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:16:06 +0100 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Hi, I had a ridiculous idea earlier today. It really needs to be shot down. You have to help fix my brain. Ready? Here it comes: Managesieve should offer mail delivery notification. The argument: Mail delivery notification needs some sort of authentication, and it needs knowledge of when which mailboxes receive mail. Sieve has the latter. The natural way to get the former is to keep a TCP connection to somewhere, perhaps turn on TLS, authenticate, say "tell me about deliveries" and just listen. That way, TCP/TLS will make sure that if I disappear, noone else gets my news. So, are two TCP protocols for talking to Sieve software desirable? I say that's one too much, which leaves me with the suggestion: Managesieve should offer mail delivery nofication. Ridiculous. --Arnt From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Dec 17 07:47:16 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHFlGib080127 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:47:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHFlGBk080118 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:47:16 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (LIN1.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.6.59]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHFlEib080109 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:47:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu) Received: from SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu (SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.122.8]) (user=rjs3 mech=GSSAPI (0 bits)) by lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBHFl6k5006123; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:47:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:47:06 -0500 (EST) From: Rob Siemborski To: Arnt Gulbrandsen cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org, Christof Drescher Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > So, are two TCP protocols for talking to Sieve software desirable? I say > that's one too much, which leaves me with the suggestion: Managesieve > should offer mail delivery nofication. Ridiculous. I really don't like this idea. It overloads the protocol in a very strange way that is entirely orthogonal to its original purpose. Aren't people in the SIP groups working on much better ways to do notifications for changes in the message store? -Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu * 412.268.7456 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++(++++) E W+ N o? K- w O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ R@ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G e++ h r- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Dec 17 07:48:36 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHFmZib080318 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:48:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHFmZTH080317 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:48:35 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from darius.cyrusoft.com (darius.cyrusoft.com [63.163.82.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHFmYib080310 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:48:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from daboo@cyrusoft.com) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (pool-68-162-131-58.pitt.east.verizon.net [68.162.131.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by darius.cyrusoft.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hBHFllEG017989 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:47:49 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:48:28 -0500 From: Cyrus Daboo To: Arnt Gulbrandsen , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org cc: Christof Drescher Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. Message-ID: <5997.1071658108@ninevah.local> In-Reply-To: References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Hi Arnt, --On Wednesday, December 17, 2003 4:16 PM +0100 Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: | I had a ridiculous idea earlier today. It really needs to be shot down. | You have to help fix my brain. | | Ready? Here it comes: | | Managesieve should offer mail delivery notification. | | The argument: | | Mail delivery notification needs some sort of authentication, and it | needs knowledge of when which mailboxes receive mail. Sieve has the | latter. The natural way to get the former is to keep a TCP connection to | somewhere, perhaps turn on TLS, authenticate, say "tell me about | deliveries" and just listen. That way, TCP/TLS will make sure that if I | disappear, noone else gets my news. | | So, are two TCP protocols for talking to Sieve software desirable? I say | that's one too much, which leaves me with the suggestion: Managesieve | should offer mail delivery nofication. Ridiculous. Well, in the case of IMAP, messages can be delivered outside of the normal 'delivery loop' - i.e. by an IMAP APPEND or COPY. I would certainly want a mail notification protocol to be able to notify me of IMAP APPENDs and COPYs adding new messages to a mailbox as well as regular delivery. What is needed is notification on the mailstore, not just on the delivery process. -- Cyrus Daboo From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Dec 17 07:46:24 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHFkOib080082 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:46:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHFkOdm080081 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:46:24 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from libertango.oryx.com (libertango.oryx.com [195.30.94.163]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHFkNib080076 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:46:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no) Message-Id: From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: Simon Josefsson Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. Cc: Christof Drescher , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:49:45 +0100 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Simon Josefsson writes: > Arnt Gulbrandsen writes: > >> Mail delivery notification needs some sort of authentication, and it >> needs knowledge of when which mailboxes receive mail. Sieve has the >> latter. > > That doesn't imply the managesieve server has that knowledge. I think > that for all it is worth, the managesieve could be located on an > entirely different machine and not at all connected to the > mail-delivery process. It might just be responsible for copying the > sieve script, and switch between the active scripts, on the mail > server. The managesieve server certainly knows which mailboxes are delivery candidates. To know that, one has to parse the Sieve scripts. It may or may not know about the delivery time. >> So, are two TCP protocols for talking to Sieve software desirable? I >> say that's one too much, which leaves me with the suggestion: >> Managesieve should offer mail delivery nofication. Ridiculous. > > I believe Managesieve is useful, and that a mail delivery protocol is > also useful. Whether the mail delivery protocol should be > sieve-specific isn't evident to me. Overloading managesieve for this > purpose seem more complicated than inventing a new protocol. ANOTHER protocol with exactly the same authentication/tls verbiage? --Arnt From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Dec 17 08:27:09 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHGR9ib082151 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:27:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHGR96M082150 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:27:09 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from pat.uio.no (IDENT:7411@pat.uio.no [129.240.130.16]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHGR3ib082138 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:27:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kjetilho@ifi.uio.no) Received: from mail-mx6.uio.no ([129.240.10.47]) by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWeVp-0003A9-GS; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:27:01 +0100 Received: from rovereto.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.68.185]) by mail-mx6.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1AWeVn-0005xL-DJ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:26:59 +0100 Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme To: Arnt Gulbrandsen Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org, Christof Drescher In-Reply-To: References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1071678417.17257.10.camel@rovereto.ifi.uio.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:26:57 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MailScanner-Information: This message has been scanned for viruses/spam. Contact postmaster@uio.no if you have questions about this scanning X-UiO-MailScanner: No virus found X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-4.9, required 12, BAYES_00 -4.90) Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 16:16, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > Managesieve should offer mail delivery notification. why not use IMAP (preferably with the IDLE extension to avoid polling)? problem: IMAP will only report deliveries to the currently selected mailbox. I think it is better to fix that with some extension than to extend MANAGESIEVE in this strange way. (unfortunately, tests show that Cyrus will wait for quite a while (upwards of a minute) before reporting deliveries, but this is a quality of implementation issue, not a problem with the protocol.) -- Kjetil T. From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Dec 17 08:31:26 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHGVQib082275 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:31:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHGVQoj082274 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:31:26 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from libertango.oryx.com (libertango.oryx.com [195.30.94.163]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHGVPib082267 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:31:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no) Message-Id: From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: Rob Siemborski Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. Cc: Christof Drescher , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:34:48 +0100 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Rob Siemborski writes: > I really don't like this idea. It overloads the protocol in a very > strange way that is entirely orthogonal to its original purpose. I don't either, for exactly the same reason. > Aren't people in the SIP groups working on much better ways to do > notifications for changes in the message store? People are always working on much better ways to do that. --Arnt From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Dec 17 08:39:44 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHGdiib082771 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:39:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHGdi5O082770 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:39:44 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (LIN1.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.6.59]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHGdgib082765 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:39:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu) Received: from SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu (SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.122.8]) (user=rjs3 mech=GSSAPI (0 bits)) by lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBHGdVk5006181; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:39:31 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:39:32 -0500 (EST) From: Rob Siemborski To: Arnt Gulbrandsen cc: Simon Josefsson , Christof Drescher , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > ANOTHER protocol with exactly the same authentication/tls verbiage? The argument that protocols use a similar authentication mechanism is NOT an argument that they should be the same protocol. The SMTP and POP3 AUTH documents I'm working on right now are very very similar (atleast, for the AUTH commands). Does this mean SMTP and POP should be the same protocol? Hardly. Mail notification is not something that is sieve-specific, and shouldn't be treated that way, certainly not by wedging it into what amounts to a glorified file transfer protocol. -Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu * 412.268.7456 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++(++++) E W+ N o? K- w O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ R@ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G e++ h r- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Dec 17 07:43:30 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHFhUib080013 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:43:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHFhU65080012 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:43:30 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from yxa.extundo.com (178.230.13.217.in-addr.dgcsystems.net [217.13.230.178]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHFhOib079998 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:43:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jas@extundo.com) Received: from latte.josefsson.org (yxa.extundo.com [217.13.230.178]) (authenticated bits=0) by yxa.extundo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBHFhFAU006322 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:43:15 +0100 To: Arnt Gulbrandsen Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org, Christof Drescher Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> From: Simon Josefsson X-Hashcash: 0:031217:arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no:26d130aacc0cd6b7 X-Hashcash: 0:031217:ietf-mta-filters@imc.org:17d6b032ad434ab2 X-Hashcash: 0:031217:drescher@pro-image.de:ec43a5b1625ec087 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:43:03 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Arnt Gulbrandsen's message of "Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:16:06 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Arnt Gulbrandsen writes: > Mail delivery notification needs some sort of authentication, and it > needs knowledge of when which mailboxes receive mail. Sieve has the > latter. That doesn't imply the managesieve server has that knowledge. I think that for all it is worth, the managesieve could be located on an entirely different machine and not at all connected to the mail-delivery process. It might just be responsible for copying the sieve script, and switch between the active scripts, on the mail server. > So, are two TCP protocols for talking to Sieve software desirable? I > say that's one too much, which leaves me with the suggestion: > Managesieve should offer mail delivery nofication. Ridiculous. I believe Managesieve is useful, and that a mail delivery protocol is also useful. Whether the mail delivery protocol should be sieve-specific isn't evident to me. Overloading managesieve for this purpose seem more complicated than inventing a new protocol. Regards, Simon From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Dec 17 09:02:56 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHH2uib083779 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:02:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHH2use083778 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:02:56 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [209.55.107.55]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHH2pib083772 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:02:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ned.freed@mrochek.com) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01L45A0BRVR400HOW2@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:02:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:58:38 -0800 (PST) From: ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:48:28 -0500" <5997.1071658108@ninevah.local> To: Cyrus Daboo Cc: Arnt Gulbrandsen , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org, Christof Drescher Message-id: <01L4AP8FU4R800HOW2@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <5997.1071658108@ninevah.local> Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: > Hi Arnt, > --On Wednesday, December 17, 2003 4:16 PM +0100 Arnt Gulbrandsen > wrote: > | I had a ridiculous idea earlier today. It really needs to be shot down. > | You have to help fix my brain. > | > | Ready? Here it comes: > | > | Managesieve should offer mail delivery notification. > | > | The argument: > | > | Mail delivery notification needs some sort of authentication, and it > | needs knowledge of when which mailboxes receive mail. Sieve has the > | latter. The natural way to get the former is to keep a TCP connection to > | somewhere, perhaps turn on TLS, authenticate, say "tell me about > | deliveries" and just listen. That way, TCP/TLS will make sure that if I > | disappear, noone else gets my news. > | > | So, are two TCP protocols for talking to Sieve software desirable? I say > | that's one too much, which leaves me with the suggestion: Managesieve > | should offer mail delivery nofication. Ridiculous. > Well, in the case of IMAP, messages can be delivered outside of the normal > 'delivery loop' - i.e. by an IMAP APPEND or COPY. I would certainly want a > mail notification protocol to be able to notify me of IMAP APPENDs and > COPYs adding new messages to a mailbox as well as regular delivery. What is > needed is notification on the mailstore, not just on the delivery process. Right. Another issue is that while sieves are typically applied near the time of delivery, this doesn't mean they are applied _at_ the time of delivery. It is entirely possible and legal for them to be applied before or after, and by an entirely separate agent from the delivery agent. For example, Sun's implementation supports sieve and notifications already but in most cases they aren't even done on the same machine. Store notifications just don't match up to sieve very well. Ned From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Dec 17 09:06:06 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHH65ib083920 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:06:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHH65tb083919 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:06:05 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mercury.mv.net (mercury.mv.net [199.125.85.40]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with SMTP id hBHH64ib083914 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:06:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mem@mv.mv.com) Received: (qmail 17496 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2003 12:06:04 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 17 Dec 2003 12:06:04 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 2915 invoked by uid 101); 17 Dec 2003 12:06:04 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:06:04 -0500 To: Rob Siemborski Cc: Arnt Gulbrandsen , Simon Josefsson , Christof Drescher , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. Message-ID: <20031217170604.GH6614@iridium.mv.net> References: <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:39:32AM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote: > > Mail notification is not something that is sieve-specific, Indeed, and neither is updating filters. > and shouldn't > be treated that way, certainly not by wedging it into what amounts to a > glorified file transfer protocol. Not to mention the implication that you'd double the connection/process load on a mailbox server (keeping an IMAP session and a Manage session open). -mm- (still trying to decide if the original post was serious.) From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Dec 17 09:20:33 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHKXib084543 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:20:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHHKXUm084542 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:20:33 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (LIN1.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.6.59]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHKVib084537 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:20:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu) Received: from SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu (SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.122.8]) (user=rjs3 mech=GSSAPI (0 bits)) by lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBHHKOk5006216; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:20:24 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:20:24 -0500 (EST) From: Rob Siemborski To: Arnt Gulbrandsen cc: "Mark E. Mallett" , Simon Josefsson , Christof Drescher , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > Well, people have ernestly said that it's good to keep N IMAP > connections open to watch for new mail in N mailboxes. Two is not very > large by that scale. Does this mean that the managesieve server now has to deal with all the shared folders it wouldn't normally be filing into also? How does this interact with IMAP ACLs, which managesieve doesn't need to know about now? Otherwise, you still need to hold open IMAP sessions on the shared folders anyway. -Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu * 412.268.7456 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++(++++) E W+ N o? K- w O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ R@ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G e++ h r- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Dec 17 09:18:42 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHIgib084401 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:18:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHHIfWm084398 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:18:41 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from libertango.oryx.com (libertango.oryx.com [195.30.94.163]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHIeib084385 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:18:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no) Message-Id: From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: "Mark E. Mallett" Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. Cc: Simon Josefsson , Christof Drescher , Rob Siemborski , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:22:03 +0100 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Mark E. Mallett writes: >> and shouldn't be treated that way, certainly not by wedging it into >> what amounts to a glorified file transfer protocol. > > Not to mention the implication that you'd double the > connection/process load on a mailbox server (keeping an IMAP session > and a Manage session open). Well, people have ernestly said that it's good to keep N IMAP connections open to watch for new mail in N mailboxes. Two is not very large by that scale. > -mm- (still trying to decide if the original post was serious.) Not serious, no - that overloading is too repulsive for me to be serious about. But also not joking. Wondering why I couldn't dismiss the idea. It seemed ridiculous, but also... Consider this question: If a client wishes to "manage sieve", does it sound out-of-scope to monitor what the sieve implementation is doing? You see what I mean. Repulsive overloading, but I can't quite dismiss it. --Arnt From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Dec 17 09:27:49 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHRnib084802 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:27:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHHRnVJ084800 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:27:49 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mercury.mv.net (mercury.mv.net [199.125.85.40]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with SMTP id hBHHRlib084792 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:27:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mem@mv.mv.com) Received: (qmail 23215 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2003 12:27:48 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 17 Dec 2003 12:27:48 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 15353 invoked by uid 101); 17 Dec 2003 12:27:47 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:27:47 -0500 To: Arnt Gulbrandsen Cc: "Mark E. Mallett" , Simon Josefsson , Christof Drescher , Rob Siemborski , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. Message-ID: <20031217172747.GI6614@iridium.mv.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:22:03PM +0100, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > Mark E. Mallett writes: > > Well, people have ernestly said that it's good to keep N IMAP > connections open to watch for new mail in N mailboxes. I would say that's a problem looking for a solution (as opposed to the other thing, which is a solution looking for a problem :-) ) > >-mm- (still trying to decide if the original post was serious.) > > Not serious, no - that overloading is too repulsive for me to be serious > about. But also not joking. Wondering why I couldn't dismiss the idea. > It seemed ridiculous, but also... Ah. I would just consider it to be the wrong place, even if one did want a separate session to watch mailboxes and folders. (One might bury that in this MUPDATE thing, for example.) > Consider this question: If a client wishes to "manage sieve", does it > sound out-of-scope to monitor what the sieve implementation is doing? It does to me. But I see your point. mm From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Dec 17 09:31:36 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHVaib085179 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:31:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHHVaeq085178 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:31:36 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from libertango.oryx.com (libertango.oryx.com [195.30.94.163]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHVZib085172 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:31:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no) Message-Id: <7NTd55ZVIbd/J5/4Tv0yBA.md5@libertango.oryx.com> From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: Rob Siemborski Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. Cc: Simon Josefsson , "Mark E. Mallett" , Christof Drescher , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:34:59 +0100 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Rob Siemborski writes: > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > >> Well, people have ernestly said that it's good to keep N IMAP >> connections open to watch for new mail in N mailboxes. Two is not >> very large by that scale. > > Does this mean that the managesieve server now has to deal with all > the shared folders it wouldn't normally be filing into also? Good point. Very good point. Thank you to everyone. > How does this interact with IMAP ACLs, which managesieve doesn't need > to know about now? Well, it doesn't matter, but I'd say that if I can persuade sieve to write to a mailbox, it's okay for sieve to tell me. --Arnt From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Dec 17 09:27:00 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHR0ib084754 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:27:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHHR07Y084753 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:27:00 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from libertango.oryx.com (libertango.oryx.com [195.30.94.163]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHQxib084748 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:26:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no) Message-Id: From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. Cc: Cyrus Daboo , Christof Drescher , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <5997.1071658108@ninevah.local> <01L4AP8FU4R800HOW2@mauve.mrochek.com> In-Reply-To: <01L4AP8FU4R800HOW2@mauve.mrochek.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:30:22 +0100 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: ned.freed@mrochek.com writes: > Another issue is that while sieves are typically applied near the time > of delivery, this doesn't mean they are applied _at_ the time of > delivery. If I define "delivery" as appearance in a user-accessible mailbox, sieving would seem to _be_ delivery. Certainly, from the point of view of a MUA watching for new mail, appearance in a user-visible mailbox is the interesting event. > It is entirely possible and legal for them to be applied before or > after, and by an entirely separate agent from the delivery agent. For > example, Sun's implementation supports sieve and notifications > already but in most cases they aren't even done on the same machine. Implementation detail, I think... But anyway, I'm sort of relieved. Even if I can't kill the idea by rational argument, the massively negative reaction on ietf-mta-filters persuades me that it's too ugly to live. --Arnt From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Dec 17 09:42:16 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHgGib085622 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:42:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHHgG0Z085620 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:42:16 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (LIN1.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.6.59]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHgEib085615 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:42:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu) Received: from SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu (SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.122.8]) (user=rjs3 mech=GSSAPI (0 bits)) by lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBHHdAk5006232; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:39:10 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:39:10 -0500 (EST) From: Rob Siemborski To: Arnt Gulbrandsen cc: Simon Josefsson , "Mark E. Mallett" , Christof Drescher , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. In-Reply-To: <7NTd55ZVIbd/J5/4Tv0yBA.md5@libertango.oryx.com> Message-ID: References: <7NTd55ZVIbd/J5/4Tv0yBA.md5@libertango.oryx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > > How does this interact with IMAP ACLs, which managesieve doesn't need > > to know about now? > > Well, it doesn't matter, but I'd say that if I can persuade sieve to > write to a mailbox, it's okay for sieve to tell me. MANAGESIEVE just parses the sieve script, it doesn't necessaraly ensure that the sieve script can deliver to a particular mailbox. -Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu * 412.268.7456 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++(++++) E W+ N o? K- w O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ R@ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G e++ h r- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Dec 17 09:50:17 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHoHib085990 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:50:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHHoHHC085988 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:50:17 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from palrel13.hp.com (palrel13.hp.com [156.153.255.238]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHoEib085983 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:50:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mganesh@india.hp.com) Received: from iconsrv5.india.hp.com (iconsrv5.india.hp.com [15.42.229.13]) by palrel13.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53D601C01B16; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:50:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from india.hp.com (nt23060.india.hp.com [15.42.230.60]) by iconsrv5.india.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_29774)/8.9.3 SMKit7.02) with ESMTP id XAA17003; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:20:11 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3FE09753.80802@india.hp.com> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:20:11 +0530 From: Madan Ganesh Velayudham User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031014 Thunderbird/0.3 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Arnt Gulbrandsen , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > > Hi, > > I had a ridiculous idea earlier today. It really needs to be shot > down. You have to help fix my brain. > > Ready? Here it comes: > > Managesieve should offer mail delivery notification. > > The argument: > > Mail delivery notification needs some sort of authentication, and it > needs knowledge of when which mailboxes receive mail. Sieve has the > latter. The natural way to get the former is to keep a TCP connection > to somewhere, perhaps turn on TLS, authenticate, say "tell me about > deliveries" and just listen. That way, TCP/TLS will make sure that if > I disappear, noone else gets my news. > > So, are two TCP protocols for talking to Sieve software desirable? I > say that's one too much, which leaves me with the suggestion: > Managesieve should offer mail delivery nofication. Ridiculous. > > --Arnt > > I've not completely gone through this thread. The following draft may not be relative to this topic. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-madanganeshv-sieve-stat-00.txt This draft describes a mechanism of collecting the statistical information about sieve action on the received mail. It introduces GETSTAT and RESETSTAT commands to [MSIEVE] to get and reset the statistic information about the sieve actions. From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Dec 17 10:13:25 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHIDPib087619 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:13:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHIDPlk087618 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:13:25 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (LIN1.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.6.59]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHIDNib087611 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:13:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu) Received: from GRAPHS.andrew.cmu.edu (GRAPHS.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.11.11]) (user=rjs3 mech=GSSAPI (0 bits)) by lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBHIA8k5006266; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:10:08 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:10:08 -0500 (EST) From: Rob Siemborski To: "Mark E. Mallett" cc: Arnt Gulbrandsen , Simon Josefsson , Christof Drescher , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. In-Reply-To: <20031217172747.GI6614@iridium.mv.net> Message-ID: References: <20031217172747.GI6614@iridium.mv.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Mark E. Mallett wrote: > > Not serious, no - that overloading is too repulsive for me to be serious > > about. But also not joking. Wondering why I couldn't dismiss the idea. > > It seemed ridiculous, but also... > > Ah. I would just consider it to be the wrong place, even if one > did want a separate session to watch mailboxes and folders. > (One might bury that in this MUPDATE thing, for example.) MUPDATE doesn't deal with anything on the per-message level. Though, if you wanted to be notified of mailbox creation/deletion, that would be much closer to the problem that MUPDATE solves. -Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu * 412.268.7456 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++(++++) E W+ N o? K- w O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ R@ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G e++ h r- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Dec 17 11:39:25 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHJdPib091936 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:39:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHJdP5k091935 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:39:25 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [209.55.107.55]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHJdLib091928 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:39:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ned.freed@mrochek.com) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01L4AUIGBDGW00HOW2@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:39:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:37:09 -0800 (PST) From: ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:30:22 +0100" To: Arnt Gulbrandsen Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, Cyrus Daboo , Christof Drescher , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Message-id: <01L4AUPISVOG00HOW2@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <5997.1071658108@ninevah.local> <01L4AP8FU4R800HOW2@mauve.mrochek.com> Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: > ned.freed@mrochek.com writes: > > Another issue is that while sieves are typically applied near the time > > of delivery, this doesn't mean they are applied _at_ the time of > > delivery. > If I define "delivery" as appearance in a user-accessible mailbox, > sieving would seem to _be_ delivery. Not hardly. Sieve application can and does occur long before or long after this point. > Certainly, from the point of view of a MUA watching for new mail, > appearance in a user-visible mailbox is the interesting event. Agreed, but your assumption that sieve is conflated with this event is just plain wrong. In our implementation, for example, sieve application occurs before, and in some cases it is separated by hours of time and done on a different system. Ned From owner-ietf-mta-filters Wed Dec 17 18:26:54 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBI2Qsib007776 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:26:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBI2Qsoc007775 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:26:54 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from yxa.extundo.com (178.230.13.217.in-addr.dgcsystems.net [217.13.230.178]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBI2Qnib007770 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:26:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jas@extundo.com) Received: from latte.josefsson.org (yxa.extundo.com [217.13.230.178]) (authenticated bits=0) by yxa.extundo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBI2QmAU021231 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:26:49 +0100 To: Arnt Gulbrandsen Cc: Christof Drescher , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> From: Simon Josefsson X-Hashcash: 0:031218:arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no:4d8715fadcb5cca1 X-Hashcash: 0:031218:drescher@pro-image.de:486f8c4f7ef6bcdd X-Hashcash: 0:031218:ietf-mta-filters@imc.org:252dd53c9c805ff4 Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:26:36 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Arnt Gulbrandsen's message of "Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:49:45 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Arnt Gulbrandsen writes: > Simon Josefsson writes: >> Arnt Gulbrandsen writes: >> >>> Mail delivery notification needs some sort of authentication, and >>> it needs knowledge of when which mailboxes receive mail. Sieve has >>> the latter. >> >> That doesn't imply the managesieve server has that knowledge. I >> think that for all it is worth, the managesieve could be located on >> an entirely different machine and not at all connected to the >> mail-delivery process. It might just be responsible for copying the >> sieve script, and switch between the active scripts, on the mail >> server. > > The managesieve server certainly knows which mailboxes are delivery > candidates. To know that, one has to parse the Sieve scripts. I thought the managesieve server only parsed the script for syntax errors. I.e., managesieve is FTP with a built-in managesieve parser. Can you point to anything in the specification that say the managesieve server know about whether delivery candidates exists or not? I haven't seen a server reject scripts if I make a typo for the mailboxes. >>> So, are two TCP protocols for talking to Sieve software desirable? >>> I say that's one too much, which leaves me with the suggestion: >>> Managesieve should offer mail delivery nofication. Ridiculous. >> >> I believe Managesieve is useful, and that a mail delivery protocol >> is also useful. Whether the mail delivery protocol should be >> sieve-specific isn't evident to me. Overloading managesieve for this >> purpose seem more complicated than inventing a new protocol. > > ANOTHER protocol with exactly the same authentication/tls verbiage? Yes, or re-use a perhaps more suitable protocol, such as IMAP, SIP, XMPP or Zephyr. Given existing TLS/SASL libraries, supporting authentication is fortunately rather easy for new protocols these days. Regards, Simon From owner-ietf-mta-filters Tue Dec 23 05:33:11 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBNDXAib002837 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:33:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBNDXAWY002836 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:33:10 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from il-tlv-smtpout1.icomverse.com (comversegw.icomverse.com [192.118.48.248]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBNDX7ib002823 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:33:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Gev_Decktor@icomverse.com) Received: from il-tlv-mbdg1.comverse.com (il-tlv-mbdg1.comverse.com [10.115.243.99]) by il-tlv-smtpout1.icomverse.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBNDWvM27912 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:32:57 +0200 Received: by il-tlv-mbdg1.comverse.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:33:07 +0200 Message-ID: <32B823C1CD4FD5119C0D0002A560F78E0CA29BDA@ismail3.comverse.com> From: Decktor Gev To: "'ietf-mta-filters@imc.org'" Subject: RE: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:33:01 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C3C959.4905F88A" Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3C959.4905F88A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi Arnt and all, We have been working in LEMONADE workgroup in IETF on such a solution for the last 2 years( As can be seen in lemonade charter (section 4) http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/lemonade-charter.html) Our latest proposal was a protocol called SNAP (http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-shapira-snap-05.txt). This protocols allows a persistent connection between the Email server and the notification server, which in turn has the role of notifying the end users which may be unconnected at the notification time. There are still lots of open issues regarding this protocol, which led us to roll back to a discussion about the scope of such protocol. This has led us to a requirements draft for such protocol, which should be the baseline of SNAP(or any other notification protocol)( http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-decktor-s2s-notif-00.txt) If you also share this interest, it would be mostly appreciated if you'd join the LEMONADE mailing list. Regards, Gev Decktor. -----Original Message----- From: Arnt Gulbrandsen [mailto:arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 5:16 PM To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Cc: Christof Drescher Subject: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. Hi, I had a ridiculous idea earlier today. It really needs to be shot down. You have to help fix my brain. Ready? Here it comes: Managesieve should offer mail delivery notification. The argument: Mail delivery notification needs some sort of authentication, and it needs knowledge of when which mailboxes receive mail. Sieve has the latter. The natural way to get the former is to keep a TCP connection to somewhere, perhaps turn on TLS, authenticate, say "tell me about deliveries" and just listen. That way, TCP/TLS will make sure that if I disappear, noone else gets my news. So, are two TCP protocols for talking to Sieve software desirable? I say that's one too much, which leaves me with the suggestion: Managesieve should offer mail delivery nofication. Ridiculous. --Arnt ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3C959.4905F88A Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down.

Hi Arnt and all,

We have been working in LEMONADE workgroup in IETF on = such a solution for the last 2 years(
As can be seen in lemonade charter (section 4) http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/lemonade-charter.htm= l)
Our latest proposal was a protocol called SNAP (http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-shapira-snap-= 05.txt).
This protocols allows a persistent connection = between the Email server and the notification server, which in turn has = the role of notifying the end users which may be unconnected at the = notification time.

There are still lots of open issues regarding this = protocol, which led us to roll back to a discussion about the scope of = such protocol. This has led us to a requirements draft for such = protocol, which should be the baseline of SNAP(or any other = notification protocol)( http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-decktor-s2s-= notif-00.txt)

If you also share this interest, it would be mostly = appreciated if you'd join the LEMONADE mailing list.

Regards,
Gev Decktor.

-----Original Message-----
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen [mailto:arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no= ]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 5:16 PM
To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org
Cc: Christof Drescher
Subject: Please shoot this ridiculous idea = down.



Hi,

I had a ridiculous idea earlier today. It really = needs to be shot down.
You have to help fix my brain.

Ready? Here it comes:

Managesieve should offer mail delivery = notification.

The argument:

Mail delivery notification needs some sort of = authentication, and it
needs knowledge of when which mailboxes receive = mail. Sieve has the
latter. The natural way to get the former is to keep = a TCP connection
to somewhere, perhaps turn on TLS, authenticate, say = "tell me about
deliveries" and just listen. That way, TCP/TLS = will make sure that if I
disappear, noone else gets my news.

So, are two TCP protocols for talking to Sieve = software desirable? I say
that's one too much, which leaves me with the = suggestion: Managesieve
should offer mail delivery nofication. = Ridiculous.

--Arnt

------_=_NextPart_001_01C3C959.4905F88A-- Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBNDXAib002837 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:33:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBNDXAWY002836 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:33:10 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from il-tlv-smtpout1.icomverse.com (comversegw.icomverse.com [192.118.48.248]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBNDX7ib002823 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:33:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Gev_Decktor@icomverse.com) Received: from il-tlv-mbdg1.comverse.com (il-tlv-mbdg1.comverse.com [10.115.243.99]) by il-tlv-smtpout1.icomverse.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBNDWvM27912 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:32:57 +0200 Received: by il-tlv-mbdg1.comverse.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:33:07 +0200 Message-ID: <32B823C1CD4FD5119C0D0002A560F78E0CA29BDA@ismail3.comverse.com> From: Decktor Gev To: "'ietf-mta-filters@imc.org'" Subject: RE: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:33:01 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C3C959.4905F88A" Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3C959.4905F88A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi Arnt and all, We have been working in LEMONADE workgroup in IETF on such a solution for the last 2 years( As can be seen in lemonade charter (section 4) http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/lemonade-charter.html) Our latest proposal was a protocol called SNAP (http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-shapira-snap-05.txt). This protocols allows a persistent connection between the Email server and the notification server, which in turn has the role of notifying the end users which may be unconnected at the notification time. There are still lots of open issues regarding this protocol, which led us to roll back to a discussion about the scope of such protocol. This has led us to a requirements draft for such protocol, which should be the baseline of SNAP(or any other notification protocol)( http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-decktor-s2s-notif-00.txt) If you also share this interest, it would be mostly appreciated if you'd join the LEMONADE mailing list. Regards, Gev Decktor. -----Original Message----- From: Arnt Gulbrandsen [mailto:arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 5:16 PM To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Cc: Christof Drescher Subject: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. Hi, I had a ridiculous idea earlier today. It really needs to be shot down. You have to help fix my brain. Ready? Here it comes: Managesieve should offer mail delivery notification. The argument: Mail delivery notification needs some sort of authentication, and it needs knowledge of when which mailboxes receive mail. Sieve has the latter. The natural way to get the former is to keep a TCP connection to somewhere, perhaps turn on TLS, authenticate, say "tell me about deliveries" and just listen. That way, TCP/TLS will make sure that if I disappear, noone else gets my news. So, are two TCP protocols for talking to Sieve software desirable? I say that's one too much, which leaves me with the suggestion: Managesieve should offer mail delivery nofication. Ridiculous. --Arnt ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3C959.4905F88A Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down.

Hi Arnt and all,

We have been working in LEMONADE workgroup in IETF on = such a solution for the last 2 years(
As can be seen in lemonade charter (section 4) http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/lemonade-charter.htm= l)
Our latest proposal was a protocol called SNAP (http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-shapira-snap-= 05.txt).
This protocols allows a persistent connection = between the Email server and the notification server, which in turn has = the role of notifying the end users which may be unconnected at the = notification time.

There are still lots of open issues regarding this = protocol, which led us to roll back to a discussion about the scope of = such protocol. This has led us to a requirements draft for such = protocol, which should be the baseline of SNAP(or any other = notification protocol)( http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-decktor-s2s-= notif-00.txt)

If you also share this interest, it would be mostly = appreciated if you'd join the LEMONADE mailing list.

Regards,
Gev Decktor.

-----Original Message-----
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen [mailto:arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no= ]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 5:16 PM
To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org
Cc: Christof Drescher
Subject: Please shoot this ridiculous idea = down.



Hi,

I had a ridiculous idea earlier today. It really = needs to be shot down.
You have to help fix my brain.

Ready? Here it comes:

Managesieve should offer mail delivery = notification.

The argument:

Mail delivery notification needs some sort of = authentication, and it
needs knowledge of when which mailboxes receive = mail. Sieve has the
latter. The natural way to get the former is to keep = a TCP connection
to somewhere, perhaps turn on TLS, authenticate, say = "tell me about
deliveries" and just listen. That way, TCP/TLS = will make sure that if I
disappear, noone else gets my news.

So, are two TCP protocols for talking to Sieve = software desirable? I say
that's one too much, which leaves me with the = suggestion: Managesieve
should offer mail delivery nofication. = Ridiculous.

--Arnt

------_=_NextPart_001_01C3C959.4905F88A-- Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBI2Qsib007776 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:26:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBI2Qsoc007775 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:26:54 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from yxa.extundo.com (178.230.13.217.in-addr.dgcsystems.net [217.13.230.178]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBI2Qnib007770 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:26:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jas@extundo.com) Received: from latte.josefsson.org (yxa.extundo.com [217.13.230.178]) (authenticated bits=0) by yxa.extundo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBI2QmAU021231 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:26:49 +0100 To: Arnt Gulbrandsen Cc: Christof Drescher , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> From: Simon Josefsson X-Hashcash: 0:031218:arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no:4d8715fadcb5cca1 X-Hashcash: 0:031218:drescher@pro-image.de:486f8c4f7ef6bcdd X-Hashcash: 0:031218:ietf-mta-filters@imc.org:252dd53c9c805ff4 Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:26:36 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Arnt Gulbrandsen's message of "Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:49:45 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Arnt Gulbrandsen writes: > Simon Josefsson writes: >> Arnt Gulbrandsen writes: >> >>> Mail delivery notification needs some sort of authentication, and >>> it needs knowledge of when which mailboxes receive mail. Sieve has >>> the latter. >> >> That doesn't imply the managesieve server has that knowledge. I >> think that for all it is worth, the managesieve could be located on >> an entirely different machine and not at all connected to the >> mail-delivery process. It might just be responsible for copying the >> sieve script, and switch between the active scripts, on the mail >> server. > > The managesieve server certainly knows which mailboxes are delivery > candidates. To know that, one has to parse the Sieve scripts. I thought the managesieve server only parsed the script for syntax errors. I.e., managesieve is FTP with a built-in managesieve parser. Can you point to anything in the specification that say the managesieve server know about whether delivery candidates exists or not? I haven't seen a server reject scripts if I make a typo for the mailboxes. >>> So, are two TCP protocols for talking to Sieve software desirable? >>> I say that's one too much, which leaves me with the suggestion: >>> Managesieve should offer mail delivery nofication. Ridiculous. >> >> I believe Managesieve is useful, and that a mail delivery protocol >> is also useful. Whether the mail delivery protocol should be >> sieve-specific isn't evident to me. Overloading managesieve for this >> purpose seem more complicated than inventing a new protocol. > > ANOTHER protocol with exactly the same authentication/tls verbiage? Yes, or re-use a perhaps more suitable protocol, such as IMAP, SIP, XMPP or Zephyr. Given existing TLS/SASL libraries, supporting authentication is fortunately rather easy for new protocols these days. Regards, Simon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHJdPib091936 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:39:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHJdP5k091935 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:39:25 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [209.55.107.55]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHJdLib091928 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:39:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ned.freed@mrochek.com) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01L4AUIGBDGW00HOW2@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:39:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:37:09 -0800 (PST) From: ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:30:22 +0100" To: Arnt Gulbrandsen Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, Cyrus Daboo , Christof Drescher , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Message-id: <01L4AUPISVOG00HOW2@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <5997.1071658108@ninevah.local> <01L4AP8FU4R800HOW2@mauve.mrochek.com> Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: > ned.freed@mrochek.com writes: > > Another issue is that while sieves are typically applied near the time > > of delivery, this doesn't mean they are applied _at_ the time of > > delivery. > If I define "delivery" as appearance in a user-accessible mailbox, > sieving would seem to _be_ delivery. Not hardly. Sieve application can and does occur long before or long after this point. > Certainly, from the point of view of a MUA watching for new mail, > appearance in a user-visible mailbox is the interesting event. Agreed, but your assumption that sieve is conflated with this event is just plain wrong. In our implementation, for example, sieve application occurs before, and in some cases it is separated by hours of time and done on a different system. Ned Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHIDPib087619 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:13:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHIDPlk087618 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:13:25 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (LIN1.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.6.59]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHIDNib087611 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:13:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu) Received: from GRAPHS.andrew.cmu.edu (GRAPHS.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.11.11]) (user=rjs3 mech=GSSAPI (0 bits)) by lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBHIA8k5006266; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:10:08 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:10:08 -0500 (EST) From: Rob Siemborski To: "Mark E. Mallett" cc: Arnt Gulbrandsen , Simon Josefsson , Christof Drescher , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. In-Reply-To: <20031217172747.GI6614@iridium.mv.net> Message-ID: References: <20031217172747.GI6614@iridium.mv.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Mark E. Mallett wrote: > > Not serious, no - that overloading is too repulsive for me to be serious > > about. But also not joking. Wondering why I couldn't dismiss the idea. > > It seemed ridiculous, but also... > > Ah. I would just consider it to be the wrong place, even if one > did want a separate session to watch mailboxes and folders. > (One might bury that in this MUPDATE thing, for example.) MUPDATE doesn't deal with anything on the per-message level. Though, if you wanted to be notified of mailbox creation/deletion, that would be much closer to the problem that MUPDATE solves. -Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu * 412.268.7456 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++(++++) E W+ N o? K- w O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ R@ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G e++ h r- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHoHib085990 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:50:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHHoHHC085988 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:50:17 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from palrel13.hp.com (palrel13.hp.com [156.153.255.238]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHoEib085983 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:50:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mganesh@india.hp.com) Received: from iconsrv5.india.hp.com (iconsrv5.india.hp.com [15.42.229.13]) by palrel13.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53D601C01B16; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:50:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from india.hp.com (nt23060.india.hp.com [15.42.230.60]) by iconsrv5.india.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_29774)/8.9.3 SMKit7.02) with ESMTP id XAA17003; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:20:11 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3FE09753.80802@india.hp.com> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:20:11 +0530 From: Madan Ganesh Velayudham User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031014 Thunderbird/0.3 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Arnt Gulbrandsen , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > > Hi, > > I had a ridiculous idea earlier today. It really needs to be shot > down. You have to help fix my brain. > > Ready? Here it comes: > > Managesieve should offer mail delivery notification. > > The argument: > > Mail delivery notification needs some sort of authentication, and it > needs knowledge of when which mailboxes receive mail. Sieve has the > latter. The natural way to get the former is to keep a TCP connection > to somewhere, perhaps turn on TLS, authenticate, say "tell me about > deliveries" and just listen. That way, TCP/TLS will make sure that if > I disappear, noone else gets my news. > > So, are two TCP protocols for talking to Sieve software desirable? I > say that's one too much, which leaves me with the suggestion: > Managesieve should offer mail delivery nofication. Ridiculous. > > --Arnt > > I've not completely gone through this thread. The following draft may not be relative to this topic. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-madanganeshv-sieve-stat-00.txt This draft describes a mechanism of collecting the statistical information about sieve action on the received mail. It introduces GETSTAT and RESETSTAT commands to [MSIEVE] to get and reset the statistic information about the sieve actions. Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHgGib085622 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:42:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHHgG0Z085620 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:42:16 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (LIN1.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.6.59]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHgEib085615 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:42:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu) Received: from SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu (SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.122.8]) (user=rjs3 mech=GSSAPI (0 bits)) by lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBHHdAk5006232; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:39:10 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:39:10 -0500 (EST) From: Rob Siemborski To: Arnt Gulbrandsen cc: Simon Josefsson , "Mark E. Mallett" , Christof Drescher , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. In-Reply-To: <7NTd55ZVIbd/J5/4Tv0yBA.md5@libertango.oryx.com> Message-ID: References: <7NTd55ZVIbd/J5/4Tv0yBA.md5@libertango.oryx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > > How does this interact with IMAP ACLs, which managesieve doesn't need > > to know about now? > > Well, it doesn't matter, but I'd say that if I can persuade sieve to > write to a mailbox, it's okay for sieve to tell me. MANAGESIEVE just parses the sieve script, it doesn't necessaraly ensure that the sieve script can deliver to a particular mailbox. -Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu * 412.268.7456 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++(++++) E W+ N o? K- w O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ R@ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G e++ h r- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHVaib085179 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:31:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHHVaeq085178 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:31:36 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from libertango.oryx.com (libertango.oryx.com [195.30.94.163]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHVZib085172 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:31:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no) Message-Id: <7NTd55ZVIbd/J5/4Tv0yBA.md5@libertango.oryx.com> From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: Rob Siemborski Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. Cc: Simon Josefsson , "Mark E. Mallett" , Christof Drescher , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:34:59 +0100 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Rob Siemborski writes: > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > >> Well, people have ernestly said that it's good to keep N IMAP >> connections open to watch for new mail in N mailboxes. Two is not >> very large by that scale. > > Does this mean that the managesieve server now has to deal with all > the shared folders it wouldn't normally be filing into also? Good point. Very good point. Thank you to everyone. > How does this interact with IMAP ACLs, which managesieve doesn't need > to know about now? Well, it doesn't matter, but I'd say that if I can persuade sieve to write to a mailbox, it's okay for sieve to tell me. --Arnt Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHRnib084802 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:27:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHHRnVJ084800 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:27:49 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mercury.mv.net (mercury.mv.net [199.125.85.40]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with SMTP id hBHHRlib084792 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:27:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mem@mv.mv.com) Received: (qmail 23215 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2003 12:27:48 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 17 Dec 2003 12:27:48 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 15353 invoked by uid 101); 17 Dec 2003 12:27:47 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:27:47 -0500 To: Arnt Gulbrandsen Cc: "Mark E. Mallett" , Simon Josefsson , Christof Drescher , Rob Siemborski , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. Message-ID: <20031217172747.GI6614@iridium.mv.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:22:03PM +0100, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > Mark E. Mallett writes: > > Well, people have ernestly said that it's good to keep N IMAP > connections open to watch for new mail in N mailboxes. I would say that's a problem looking for a solution (as opposed to the other thing, which is a solution looking for a problem :-) ) > >-mm- (still trying to decide if the original post was serious.) > > Not serious, no - that overloading is too repulsive for me to be serious > about. But also not joking. Wondering why I couldn't dismiss the idea. > It seemed ridiculous, but also... Ah. I would just consider it to be the wrong place, even if one did want a separate session to watch mailboxes and folders. (One might bury that in this MUPDATE thing, for example.) > Consider this question: If a client wishes to "manage sieve", does it > sound out-of-scope to monitor what the sieve implementation is doing? It does to me. But I see your point. mm Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHR0ib084754 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:27:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHHR07Y084753 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:27:00 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from libertango.oryx.com (libertango.oryx.com [195.30.94.163]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHQxib084748 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:26:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no) Message-Id: From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. Cc: Cyrus Daboo , Christof Drescher , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <5997.1071658108@ninevah.local> <01L4AP8FU4R800HOW2@mauve.mrochek.com> In-Reply-To: <01L4AP8FU4R800HOW2@mauve.mrochek.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:30:22 +0100 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: ned.freed@mrochek.com writes: > Another issue is that while sieves are typically applied near the time > of delivery, this doesn't mean they are applied _at_ the time of > delivery. If I define "delivery" as appearance in a user-accessible mailbox, sieving would seem to _be_ delivery. Certainly, from the point of view of a MUA watching for new mail, appearance in a user-visible mailbox is the interesting event. > It is entirely possible and legal for them to be applied before or > after, and by an entirely separate agent from the delivery agent. For > example, Sun's implementation supports sieve and notifications > already but in most cases they aren't even done on the same machine. Implementation detail, I think... But anyway, I'm sort of relieved. Even if I can't kill the idea by rational argument, the massively negative reaction on ietf-mta-filters persuades me that it's too ugly to live. --Arnt Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHKXib084543 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:20:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHHKXUm084542 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:20:33 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (LIN1.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.6.59]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHKVib084537 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:20:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu) Received: from SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu (SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.122.8]) (user=rjs3 mech=GSSAPI (0 bits)) by lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBHHKOk5006216; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:20:24 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:20:24 -0500 (EST) From: Rob Siemborski To: Arnt Gulbrandsen cc: "Mark E. Mallett" , Simon Josefsson , Christof Drescher , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > Well, people have ernestly said that it's good to keep N IMAP > connections open to watch for new mail in N mailboxes. Two is not very > large by that scale. Does this mean that the managesieve server now has to deal with all the shared folders it wouldn't normally be filing into also? How does this interact with IMAP ACLs, which managesieve doesn't need to know about now? Otherwise, you still need to hold open IMAP sessions on the shared folders anyway. -Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu * 412.268.7456 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++(++++) E W+ N o? K- w O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ R@ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G e++ h r- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHIgib084401 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:18:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHHIfWm084398 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:18:41 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from libertango.oryx.com (libertango.oryx.com [195.30.94.163]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHHIeib084385 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:18:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no) Message-Id: From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: "Mark E. Mallett" Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. Cc: Simon Josefsson , Christof Drescher , Rob Siemborski , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:22:03 +0100 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Mark E. Mallett writes: >> and shouldn't be treated that way, certainly not by wedging it into >> what amounts to a glorified file transfer protocol. > > Not to mention the implication that you'd double the > connection/process load on a mailbox server (keeping an IMAP session > and a Manage session open). Well, people have ernestly said that it's good to keep N IMAP connections open to watch for new mail in N mailboxes. Two is not very large by that scale. > -mm- (still trying to decide if the original post was serious.) Not serious, no - that overloading is too repulsive for me to be serious about. But also not joking. Wondering why I couldn't dismiss the idea. It seemed ridiculous, but also... Consider this question: If a client wishes to "manage sieve", does it sound out-of-scope to monitor what the sieve implementation is doing? You see what I mean. Repulsive overloading, but I can't quite dismiss it. --Arnt Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHH65ib083920 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:06:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHH65tb083919 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:06:05 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mercury.mv.net (mercury.mv.net [199.125.85.40]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with SMTP id hBHH64ib083914 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:06:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mem@mv.mv.com) Received: (qmail 17496 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2003 12:06:04 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 17 Dec 2003 12:06:04 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 2915 invoked by uid 101); 17 Dec 2003 12:06:04 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:06:04 -0500 To: Rob Siemborski Cc: Arnt Gulbrandsen , Simon Josefsson , Christof Drescher , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. Message-ID: <20031217170604.GH6614@iridium.mv.net> References: <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:39:32AM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote: > > Mail notification is not something that is sieve-specific, Indeed, and neither is updating filters. > and shouldn't > be treated that way, certainly not by wedging it into what amounts to a > glorified file transfer protocol. Not to mention the implication that you'd double the connection/process load on a mailbox server (keeping an IMAP session and a Manage session open). -mm- (still trying to decide if the original post was serious.) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHH2uib083779 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:02:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHH2use083778 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:02:56 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [209.55.107.55]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHH2pib083772 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:02:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ned.freed@mrochek.com) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01L45A0BRVR400HOW2@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:02:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:58:38 -0800 (PST) From: ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:48:28 -0500" <5997.1071658108@ninevah.local> To: Cyrus Daboo Cc: Arnt Gulbrandsen , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org, Christof Drescher Message-id: <01L4AP8FU4R800HOW2@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <5997.1071658108@ninevah.local> Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: > Hi Arnt, > --On Wednesday, December 17, 2003 4:16 PM +0100 Arnt Gulbrandsen > wrote: > | I had a ridiculous idea earlier today. It really needs to be shot down. > | You have to help fix my brain. > | > | Ready? Here it comes: > | > | Managesieve should offer mail delivery notification. > | > | The argument: > | > | Mail delivery notification needs some sort of authentication, and it > | needs knowledge of when which mailboxes receive mail. Sieve has the > | latter. The natural way to get the former is to keep a TCP connection to > | somewhere, perhaps turn on TLS, authenticate, say "tell me about > | deliveries" and just listen. That way, TCP/TLS will make sure that if I > | disappear, noone else gets my news. > | > | So, are two TCP protocols for talking to Sieve software desirable? I say > | that's one too much, which leaves me with the suggestion: Managesieve > | should offer mail delivery nofication. Ridiculous. > Well, in the case of IMAP, messages can be delivered outside of the normal > 'delivery loop' - i.e. by an IMAP APPEND or COPY. I would certainly want a > mail notification protocol to be able to notify me of IMAP APPENDs and > COPYs adding new messages to a mailbox as well as regular delivery. What is > needed is notification on the mailstore, not just on the delivery process. Right. Another issue is that while sieves are typically applied near the time of delivery, this doesn't mean they are applied _at_ the time of delivery. It is entirely possible and legal for them to be applied before or after, and by an entirely separate agent from the delivery agent. For example, Sun's implementation supports sieve and notifications already but in most cases they aren't even done on the same machine. Store notifications just don't match up to sieve very well. Ned Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHGdiib082771 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:39:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHGdi5O082770 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:39:44 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (LIN1.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.6.59]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHGdgib082765 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:39:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu) Received: from SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu (SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.122.8]) (user=rjs3 mech=GSSAPI (0 bits)) by lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBHGdVk5006181; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:39:31 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:39:32 -0500 (EST) From: Rob Siemborski To: Arnt Gulbrandsen cc: Simon Josefsson , Christof Drescher , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > ANOTHER protocol with exactly the same authentication/tls verbiage? The argument that protocols use a similar authentication mechanism is NOT an argument that they should be the same protocol. The SMTP and POP3 AUTH documents I'm working on right now are very very similar (atleast, for the AUTH commands). Does this mean SMTP and POP should be the same protocol? Hardly. Mail notification is not something that is sieve-specific, and shouldn't be treated that way, certainly not by wedging it into what amounts to a glorified file transfer protocol. -Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu * 412.268.7456 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++(++++) E W+ N o? K- w O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ R@ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G e++ h r- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHGVQib082275 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:31:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHGVQoj082274 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:31:26 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from libertango.oryx.com (libertango.oryx.com [195.30.94.163]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHGVPib082267 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:31:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no) Message-Id: From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: Rob Siemborski Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. Cc: Christof Drescher , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:34:48 +0100 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Rob Siemborski writes: > I really don't like this idea. It overloads the protocol in a very > strange way that is entirely orthogonal to its original purpose. I don't either, for exactly the same reason. > Aren't people in the SIP groups working on much better ways to do > notifications for changes in the message store? People are always working on much better ways to do that. --Arnt Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHGR9ib082151 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:27:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHGR96M082150 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:27:09 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from pat.uio.no (IDENT:7411@pat.uio.no [129.240.130.16]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHGR3ib082138 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:27:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kjetilho@ifi.uio.no) Received: from mail-mx6.uio.no ([129.240.10.47]) by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWeVp-0003A9-GS; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:27:01 +0100 Received: from rovereto.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.68.185]) by mail-mx6.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1AWeVn-0005xL-DJ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:26:59 +0100 Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme To: Arnt Gulbrandsen Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org, Christof Drescher In-Reply-To: References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1071678417.17257.10.camel@rovereto.ifi.uio.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:26:57 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MailScanner-Information: This message has been scanned for viruses/spam. Contact postmaster@uio.no if you have questions about this scanning X-UiO-MailScanner: No virus found X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-4.9, required 12, BAYES_00 -4.90) Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 16:16, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > Managesieve should offer mail delivery notification. why not use IMAP (preferably with the IDLE extension to avoid polling)? problem: IMAP will only report deliveries to the currently selected mailbox. I think it is better to fix that with some extension than to extend MANAGESIEVE in this strange way. (unfortunately, tests show that Cyrus will wait for quite a while (upwards of a minute) before reporting deliveries, but this is a quality of implementation issue, not a problem with the protocol.) -- Kjetil T. Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHFmZib080318 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:48:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHFmZTH080317 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:48:35 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from darius.cyrusoft.com (darius.cyrusoft.com [63.163.82.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHFmYib080310 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:48:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from daboo@cyrusoft.com) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (pool-68-162-131-58.pitt.east.verizon.net [68.162.131.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by darius.cyrusoft.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hBHFllEG017989 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:47:49 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:48:28 -0500 From: Cyrus Daboo To: Arnt Gulbrandsen , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org cc: Christof Drescher Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. Message-ID: <5997.1071658108@ninevah.local> In-Reply-To: References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Hi Arnt, --On Wednesday, December 17, 2003 4:16 PM +0100 Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: | I had a ridiculous idea earlier today. It really needs to be shot down. | You have to help fix my brain. | | Ready? Here it comes: | | Managesieve should offer mail delivery notification. | | The argument: | | Mail delivery notification needs some sort of authentication, and it | needs knowledge of when which mailboxes receive mail. Sieve has the | latter. The natural way to get the former is to keep a TCP connection to | somewhere, perhaps turn on TLS, authenticate, say "tell me about | deliveries" and just listen. That way, TCP/TLS will make sure that if I | disappear, noone else gets my news. | | So, are two TCP protocols for talking to Sieve software desirable? I say | that's one too much, which leaves me with the suggestion: Managesieve | should offer mail delivery nofication. Ridiculous. Well, in the case of IMAP, messages can be delivered outside of the normal 'delivery loop' - i.e. by an IMAP APPEND or COPY. I would certainly want a mail notification protocol to be able to notify me of IMAP APPENDs and COPYs adding new messages to a mailbox as well as regular delivery. What is needed is notification on the mailstore, not just on the delivery process. -- Cyrus Daboo Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHFlGib080127 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:47:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHFlGBk080118 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:47:16 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (LIN1.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.6.59]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHFlEib080109 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:47:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu) Received: from SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu (SOURCEFOUR.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.122.8]) (user=rjs3 mech=GSSAPI (0 bits)) by lin1.andrew.cmu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBHFl6k5006123; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:47:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:47:06 -0500 (EST) From: Rob Siemborski To: Arnt Gulbrandsen cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org, Christof Drescher Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > So, are two TCP protocols for talking to Sieve software desirable? I say > that's one too much, which leaves me with the suggestion: Managesieve > should offer mail delivery nofication. Ridiculous. I really don't like this idea. It overloads the protocol in a very strange way that is entirely orthogonal to its original purpose. Aren't people in the SIP groups working on much better ways to do notifications for changes in the message store? -Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * rjs3@andrew.cmu.edu * 412.268.7456 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++(++++) E W+ N o? K- w O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ R@ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G e++ h r- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHFkOib080082 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:46:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHFkOdm080081 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:46:24 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from libertango.oryx.com (libertango.oryx.com [195.30.94.163]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHFkNib080076 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:46:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no) Message-Id: From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: Simon Josefsson Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. Cc: Christof Drescher , ietf-mta-filters@imc.org References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:49:45 +0100 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Simon Josefsson writes: > Arnt Gulbrandsen writes: > >> Mail delivery notification needs some sort of authentication, and it >> needs knowledge of when which mailboxes receive mail. Sieve has the >> latter. > > That doesn't imply the managesieve server has that knowledge. I think > that for all it is worth, the managesieve could be located on an > entirely different machine and not at all connected to the > mail-delivery process. It might just be responsible for copying the > sieve script, and switch between the active scripts, on the mail > server. The managesieve server certainly knows which mailboxes are delivery candidates. To know that, one has to parse the Sieve scripts. It may or may not know about the delivery time. >> So, are two TCP protocols for talking to Sieve software desirable? I >> say that's one too much, which leaves me with the suggestion: >> Managesieve should offer mail delivery nofication. Ridiculous. > > I believe Managesieve is useful, and that a mail delivery protocol is > also useful. Whether the mail delivery protocol should be > sieve-specific isn't evident to me. Overloading managesieve for this > purpose seem more complicated than inventing a new protocol. ANOTHER protocol with exactly the same authentication/tls verbiage? --Arnt Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHFhUib080013 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:43:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHFhU65080012 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:43:30 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from yxa.extundo.com (178.230.13.217.in-addr.dgcsystems.net [217.13.230.178]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHFhOib079998 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:43:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jas@extundo.com) Received: from latte.josefsson.org (yxa.extundo.com [217.13.230.178]) (authenticated bits=0) by yxa.extundo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBHFhFAU006322 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:43:15 +0100 To: Arnt Gulbrandsen Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org, Christof Drescher Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> From: Simon Josefsson X-Hashcash: 0:031217:arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no:26d130aacc0cd6b7 X-Hashcash: 0:031217:ietf-mta-filters@imc.org:17d6b032ad434ab2 X-Hashcash: 0:031217:drescher@pro-image.de:ec43a5b1625ec087 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:43:03 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Arnt Gulbrandsen's message of "Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:16:06 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Arnt Gulbrandsen writes: > Mail delivery notification needs some sort of authentication, and it > needs knowledge of when which mailboxes receive mail. Sieve has the > latter. That doesn't imply the managesieve server has that knowledge. I think that for all it is worth, the managesieve could be located on an entirely different machine and not at all connected to the mail-delivery process. It might just be responsible for copying the sieve script, and switch between the active scripts, on the mail server. > So, are two TCP protocols for talking to Sieve software desirable? I > say that's one too much, which leaves me with the suggestion: > Managesieve should offer mail delivery nofication. Ridiculous. I believe Managesieve is useful, and that a mail delivery protocol is also useful. Whether the mail delivery protocol should be sieve-specific isn't evident to me. Overloading managesieve for this purpose seem more complicated than inventing a new protocol. Regards, Simon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHFCrib078416 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:12:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBHFCrTr078415 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:12:53 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from libertango.oryx.com (libertango.oryx.com [195.30.94.163]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHFCkib078407 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:12:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no) Message-Id: From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org Subject: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down. Cc: Christof Drescher References: <00ba01c3c483$da03fc40$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <010901c3c488$42a5e2f0$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <015101c3c48c$57a80300$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> <019801c3c492$465af020$4d65a8c0@ProImage.local> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:16:06 +0100 Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Hi, I had a ridiculous idea earlier today. It really needs to be shot down. You have to help fix my brain. Ready? Here it comes: Managesieve should offer mail delivery notification. The argument: Mail delivery notification needs some sort of authentication, and it needs knowledge of when which mailboxes receive mail. Sieve has the latter. The natural way to get the former is to keep a TCP connection to somewhere, perhaps turn on TLS, authenticate, say "tell me about deliveries" and just listen. That way, TCP/TLS will make sure that if I disappear, noone else gets my news. So, are two TCP protocols for talking to Sieve software desirable? I say that's one too much, which leaves me with the suggestion: Managesieve should offer mail delivery nofication. Ridiculous. --Arnt Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBFM2Hib020596 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:02:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBFM2HR6020595 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:02:17 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from pat.uio.no (IDENT:7411@pat.uio.no [129.240.130.16]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBFM2Fib020589 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:02:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kjetilho@ifi.uio.no) Received: from mail-mx2.uio.no ([129.240.10.30]) by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW0n7-0001Kq-St for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:02:13 +0100 Received: from rovereto.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.68.185]) by mail-mx2.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1AW0n1-0008Q7-44 for ietf-mta-filters@imc.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:02:07 +0100 Subject: Re: vacation and address comparisons From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme To: IETF MTA Filters In-Reply-To: <30173.1071494236@ninevah.cyrusoft.com> References: <30173.1071494236@ninevah.cyrusoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1071525727.2262.889.camel@rovereto.ifi.uio.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:02:08 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MailScanner-Information: This message has been scanned for viruses/spam. Contact postmaster@uio.no if you have questions about this scanning X-UiO-MailScanner: No virus found X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-4.9, required 12, BAYES_00 -4.90) Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 19:17, Cyrus Daboo wrote: > [good catch snipped] > I see several possibilities to this: > > 1) vacation address comparisons are implementation defined: implementations > know whether they do case-sensitive or case-insensitive address matches on > delivery so they pick the appropriate comparator. Some statement of that > should be in the spec. but the case sensitive system may have expanded the alias and forwarded it to a different host which isn't. > 2) vacation addresses are explicitly defined either case-sensitive or > case-insensitive on the local part - we have to pick which and state in the > spec. it would have to be case-sensitive, wouldn't it? it's possible to simulate case-insensitivity, however awkward it is, the reverse is not true. > 3) A new comparator argument is added to the addresses parameter to allow a > comparator to be explicitly chosen - we would have to pick the default in > the absence of that argument. I think this is the Correct(tm) solution. -- Kjetil T. Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBFIHIib010096 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:17:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBFIHI2L010095 for ietf-mta-filters-bks; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:17:18 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from darius.cyrusoft.com (darius.cyrusoft.com [63.163.82.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBFIHHib010090 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:17:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from daboo@cyrusoft.com) Received: from ninevah.cyrusoft.com (ninevah.cyrusoft.com [63.163.82.9]) (authenticated bits=0) by darius.cyrusoft.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hBFIGqEG010932 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:16:53 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:17:16 -0500 From: Cyrus Daboo To: IETF MTA Filters Subject: vacation and address comparisons Message-ID: <30173.1071494236@ninevah.cyrusoft.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: The vacation action has an addresses parameter that can be used to indicate other addresses that belong to the current user. There is currently an ambiguity as to how address comparisons for that parameter should be done: are they case-sensitive or case-insensitive on the local part? Default base-spec SIEVE address comparisons are case-insensitive since i;ascii-casemap is used as the default comparator. I see several possibilities to this: 1) vacation address comparisons are implementation defined: implementations know whether they do case-sensitive or case-insensitive address matches on delivery so they pick the appropriate comparator. Some statement of that should be in the spec. 2) vacation addresses are explicitly defined either case-sensitive or case-insensitive on the local part - we have to pick which and state in the spec. 3) A new comparator argument is added to the addresses parameter to allow a comparator to be explicitly chosen - we would have to pick the default in the absence of that argument. Any comments on this? -- Cyrus Daboo