Comments on draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-07.txt

[Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Barry,
Let me try to rephrase my personal objections regarding some specific cases of using SHOULD in the latest draft.

In section 2.7:

  o  The "To:" header field and the envelope recipient(s) of the
     notification message SHOULD be set to the address(es) specified in
     the URI (including any URI headers where the hname is "to").


I think there is a problem with this text. Surely the envelope recipient 
is specified in the mailto URI itself, not in the to URI header. (Your 
example in section 3 confirms that.) For example if mailto URI is 
"mailto:0123456789@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?to=evil@master.example.com";, then the 
envelope recipient is 0123456789@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and not 
evil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I think the text is also trying to say that both To: header and envelope 
to should be set to the same value.

So, I suggest the paragraph is split into 2 paragraphs to separately 
specify requirements on To: and envelope recipient.

  o  The "Subject:" field of the notification message MUST contain the
     value defined by the :message notify tag, as described in
     [Notify].  If there is no :message tag and there is a "subject"
     header on the URI, then that value SHOULD be used.


I think this SHOULD should be upgraded to a MUST. Reason: I can see use 
cases when :message is never used and Subject is specified in the mailto 
URI itself. So I think

Also, Arnt has raised a good question about whether implementations are 
allowed to strip/alter garbage in :message or subject URI header. I 
think this should be addressed as well.


I also have a new question. It might be a stupid one, but I will ask it 
anyway ;-). How References should be handled? Is the new message allowed 
to reference the original message? Are References: allowed as mailto URI 
headers?

**