From: Ian Castle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 08 Nov 2001 06:44:20 +0000
On Wed, 2001-11-07 at 22:22, Lawrence Greenfield wrote: > The other thing to consider is how to keep the Cyrus black-box > approach. Non-administrators should be able to modify these Sieve > scripts and name them appropriately. > I'm not sure I understand what you mean. By "non-administrators" do you mean "people who need to administer cyrus but don't have any other access to the box than via pop3/imap or sieve ports"? I think that you addressed my concerns in your second proposal. I'm not sure I love the idea of the "folder" command in timsieved, but I'll have to contemplate. I think there's also a question about whether at most one sieve script should apply to any folder or whether multiple Sieve scripts might apply to incoming messages to one folder, and how they should be concatenated if so. Currently, a script can be applied to messages delivered to a single folder, for example, the user "fred". So, fred can create a script "myscript.script". "fred" then wants to apply this script to messages delivered to the folder "user.fred". How does he do this? "Magic directories" are used, say /var/lib/sieve/f/fred/default. I don't really see anything suggested that does more "magic" beyond this concept. Yes, what I was emphasizing is that there has to be a coherent image of what's going on seperate from how we represent things on the filesystem, since really the filesystem is just a database. We want the world from outside the server to be a logical system; you shouldn't need to know how things are implemented behind the scenes. Likewise, things like "sieveusehomedirs" are only there for making things easy for some people; in general, it's not how Cyrus is meant to be used. Larry
