[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
new body draft (-09) submitted
- To: ietf-mta-filters@xxxxxxx
- Subject: new body draft (-09) submitted
- From: Philip Guenther <guenther+mtafilters@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:13:49 -0600
- Cc: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=sendmail.com; s=ladle.dkim; t=1205993746; bh=yaFM3lMVNjtwddruvo1SghOpYpEINckXVf4B K6c2VaI=; h=Received:X-DKIM:DKIM-Signature:Date:From:X-X-Sender:To: cc:Subject:Message-ID:User-Agent:MIME-Version:Content-Type: X-MM-Ex-RefId; b=UeXTwkIRcppjpxIWkWz+leY0be4sxee99Gigw+Z8MZaL3MIv/ KpkZFFq855B/X3Vzd6EAkRJw8dvPQJZzhhmg3RrFtFR/4VQoUnDv2bRVQoLwoSst3RY 4fKi4u8BnZGoBX15ZWBZBH4fPZtbroR0C8v7B5wKr1lUTI8B7SHvNHo=
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sendmail.com; s=fife.dkim; t=1205993654; bh=yaFM3lMVNjtwddruvo1SghOpYpEINckXVf4BK 6c2VaI=; h=Date:From:X-X-Sender:To:cc:Subject:Message-ID:User-Agent: MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-MM-Ex-RefId; b=kY845BABlBWQfGP0O4usmtp +jP7UqS1GXzl1XeJMJaje8nYHT01KRs/RcXngM7qfd1EiSU/WbD9SVMNx5eQ1h1t7Re x+aTwiXfElahBionEyvx66OPiX2H4SS9/2M+sfk+QLrp2MKY7QAhGBnJCRZOxrEOHmQ VQhxEYhac2uem8=
- List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/>
- List-id: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org>
- List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
- Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Alpine 1.00 (BSO 882 2007-12-20)
I just submitted draft-ietf-sieve-body-09.txt with a handful of minor
tweaks. Could have done them as notes to the RFC editor, but as long as
I'm feeling spritely, might as well just roll a new rev...
To quote the changelog in the draft:
11.1 Changes from draft-ietf-sieve-body-08.txt
Add a "Capability Identifier" section to match existing RFCs.
Make the normative and information references subsections of a
"References" section to match existing RFCs.
Tweak description field of the IANA registration.
Change "wild card" to "wildcard".
A couple of those were in response to a review done by Christian Vogt back
in January. I had misfiled his comments and only found them again after
the -08 revision was posted. His major concern was that the 'no body' vs
'empty body' distinction should not be made; I disagree and pushed back on
that, citing parallelism with the 'header' and 'address' tests and the
observation that the distinction can only affect tests that actually match
the empty body. While it's unlikely that a real user filter would care
about this, a filter processing messages that were programmatically
generated might. <shurg>
Philip Guenther