Re: [Fwd: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-07.txt]

["Mark E. Mallett" <mem@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:22:41PM +0200, Michael Haardt wrote:
> 
> Let me try to get rid of the quoted discussion.  We ended up with
> this so far:
> 
>   If ":from" is not specified or is not valid, the envelope 
>   sender of the notification message SHOULD be set either to the 
>   envelope "to" field from the triggering message, as used by 
>   Sieve, or to an email address associated with the notification system,
>   at the discretion of the implementation.
> 
> Now you suggest, after we got rid of the fixed address of the notification
> system, we should get rid of the fixed envelope "to" field as well and
> replace it with "the address of the owner of the Sieve script", which
> is what vacation does.  The version would be:
> 
>   If ":from" is not specified or is not valid, the envelope 
>   sender of the notification message SHOULD be set either to the 
>   the address of the owner of the Sieve script,
>   or to an email address associated with the notification system,
>   at the discretion of the implementation.
> 
> Correct so far?

I didn't [intend to] suggest getting rid of the envelope-to field from
the list of choices, but only to add an address associated with the
Sieve script to that list.  I think the owner's address is at least as
good a choice for a fixed address as a system-wide one.  It may be
more readable to express it as a list, e.g.:

   If ":from" is not specified or is not valid, the envelope 
   sender of the notification message SHOULD be selected from
   one of the following, at the discretion of the implementation:
     - the envelope "to" field from the triggering message, as used
       by Sieve;
     - the address of the owner of the Sieve script;
     - an email address associated with the notification system.

At any rate, I was attempting to add one thing to the list of choices,
not subtract from it.

mm