> From: Lawrence Greenfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > I think that you addressed my concerns in your second proposal. I'm > not sure I love the idea of the "folder" command in timsieved, but > I'll have to contemplate. > > I think there's also a question about whether at most one sieve script > should apply to any folder or whether multiple Sieve scripts might > apply to incoming messages to one folder, and how they should be > concatenated if so.
Well, the mechanism/interface is there. Allow "activate" to apply to more than one script. One way would be to have a subdirectory called "default" with symlinks to all the active scripts in the directory. The symlinks could be prefixed with a number "0001_myscript.script" "0002_mysecondscript" to allow ordering. You could introduce "up down" commands, or just let activate remove things from the list and append to the bottom. A bit clumsy without a gui. Or simply let the file names determine the order. A second way would mean be to extend sieve with an "include" statement. So you would have "default" being include "[script1,script2,script3]"; Anyway, this is perhaps orthogonal to the problem I am particularly interested in which is apply scripts to different folders - i.e. mapping scripts to the folder name space rather than the username space. > > > Yes, what I was emphasizing is that there has to be a coherent > image of what's going on seperate from how we represent things on the > filesystem, since really the filesystem is just a database. Yes. I understand this and agree fully. > > We want the world from outside the server to be a logical system; you > shouldn't need to know how things are implemented behind the scenes. Absolutely! > > Likewise, things like "sieveusehomedirs" are only there for making > things easy for some people; in general, it's not how Cyrus is meant > to be used. Will, my second proposal won't even work with "sieveusehomedirs" ;-). I.e. you either have a script in your home dir or you have scripts associated with folders managed through timsieved. > > Larry > > > > Anyway, to carry on banging my drum, currently scripts have a name space associated with "users". The "users" name space is but a subset of the full folder namespace - i.e. there aren't really users but only "INBOXes" - users are implicitly derived from this. This should be changed so that scripts are set in the same namespace as folders. So rather than thinking that "this script applies to this user" I am suggesting that we think "this script applies to this folder". Obviously, if the folder is "user.fred" then the statements are synonymous. However, we can use the second way to, obviously, refer to more than just folders of the category "user.something". This seems to me to be both an obvious and more comfortable way of thinking about the relationship of scripts to the rest of the system. Ian.
