Cyrus Daboo wrote:
Hi Ken,
--On Tuesday, July 8, 2003 9:59 AM -0400 Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| In the past, people have requested the ability to run sieve scripts when | messages are posted directly to shared mailboxes (via +detail | addressing). I have suggested that this would be possible by associating | a script with the 'postuser' (typically "bb" or ""), but this was deemed | unacceptable as people wanted more fine grained control over which | mailboxes would have the script run. | | Now that Cyrus 2.2 has support for mailbox annotations, I believe that we | can provide the functionality that people desire. I propose the | following: | | We will create a new "/vendor/cmu/cyrus-imapd/sieve" shared annotation | which can only be set by an admin. Whenever a message is posted directly | to a shared mailbox, the script specified by the /sieve annotation (if | any) will be run. | | Question: Should the annotation be inherited by child mailboxes? This | would allow the same script to be run on an entire hierarchy by only | setting one annotation.
Inheritance may be wanted (I suspect a lot of people will want that given that I know a lot of people have requested various mailbox inheritance behaviours in Mulberry). I think you will need to add another annotation to turn on or off inheritance for all children: "/vendor/cmu/cyrus-imapd/sieve-inherit" with values "true" or "false".
Yes. There needs to be a mechanism for disabling inheritance.
The server would have to manage the inheritance behaviour itself since ANNOTATEMORE does not have inheritance built-in (this does beg the question as to whether ANNOTATEMORE should have inheritance built-in but that will add a lot of complexity). The question is whether to make inheritance the default or not.
Yeah, we're already managing inheritance internally for a /vendor/cmu/cyrus-imapd/expire annotation. I don't think that adding it to the spec is necessary.
Also note that this has to also work by adding a script to a \NoSelect mailbox (i.e. one that is a 'directory' rather than a message container) - but ANNOTATEMORE requires that to be supported.
Correct. Did you see Rob's message on imapext concerning this?
Does a SIEVE fileinto constitute a 'post' operation that would trigger an attached script? If so, then you need to make sure loops are prevented.
I hadn't anticipated fileinto triggering the script (no different than user scripts).
What about IMAP APPEND? Does that trigger the script? It really ought to as well.
I hadn't anticipated this. What would be the need/advantage of this?
Will you extend ManageSIEVE to allow setting scripts on mailboxes via that protocol?
We would probably have to do something. This is also necesary for your Sieve Include extension. These scripts would be treated as /global.
Should a script attached to INBOX actually be the users primary (delivery) SIEVE script? If so setting that script via IMAP ANNTATEMORE should have the same effect as doing so via ManageSIEVE.
True. I hadn't thought about that. This might be worth exploring.
Since Rob is on vacation, I haven't discussed any of this with him. -- Kenneth Murchison Oceana Matrix Ltd. Software Engineer 21 Princeton Place 716-662-8973 x26 Orchard Park, NY 14127 --PGP Public Key-- http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp
