Re: Sieve counterpart of IMAP SPECIAL-USE (RFC 6154) ?
Aaron Stone <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mta-filters |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAEdAYKX7S7i-KQuc_eW7W=6qW=U4bOK3BKmMqPvhupv4XO0PdA@mail.gmail.com> |
No kidding, I remember arguing to do exactly this kind of IMAP extension years ago! As I recall, everyone said things to the effect of "You don't want special folders, Mark doesn't like that idea much." ... though I might have been arguing for both special folders, "\Trash" as well as magic folders, "\Outbox"... :) Personal hat: I generally like but don't love the idea. If I were the implementor, I'd already have a set of magic folder names, and fileinto "Magic Name" would do as you're suggesting. Anyhow, as Cyrus points out, an individual submission would be best, since the WG is running slow lately and we should be wrapping it up. Cheers, Aaron On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Stephan Bosch <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On an IMAP server mailing list I participated in a discussion about the > new the IMAP LIST Extension for Special-Use Mailboxes (RFC 6154). In a > nutshell, this extension allows identifying special-use mailboxes to an > IMAP client. Special-use can for instance be a junk, trash, drafts, or > archive folder. This way clients can easily identify such folders and use > them without explicit user configuration. > > At some point, the idea was raised to extend the Sieve language with > similar means. It could for instance be useful to have a special version of > the fileinto command that files the message into the default folder for a > particular special-use, e.g. `fileinto :special_use "\\Junk";'. This can be > particularly useful for global scripts outside the user's control. Through > metadata support it is already possible to find out whether a folder has a > special-use tag, but conversely it is not possible to find out which > folders have a particular tag or what folder would be the default choice > for that tag (note that the notion of a default folder for a particular > special-use is missing in RFC 6154, which may be a problem). > > My question is: do you think it is useful to have a Sieve SPECIAL-USE > counterpart? And in what form? > > Regards, > > Stephan. > ______________________________**_________________ > sieve mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/sieve<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve> > _______________________________________________ sieve mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve