Re: I-D ACTION:draft-hansen-sieve-loop-00.txt]

Hi Tony,

Just read your new I-Draft and it seems to be solving some of the same problems that the
draft-daboo-sieve-mime-00.txt draft is trying to solve, so it seems like the two should probably be
worked on together.  

The original draft is here:  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-daboo-sieve-mime-00.txt

But I made an alternative proposal in response that seemed to have a lot of support although was never
written up into a new draft.  You can read my response here and follow the replies:  http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/msg02238.html

My proposal for a HEADER-PART tagged argument to the header does mostly the same job as your part test with
:filename/:type/:subtype approach, and my :bodyparts optional argument does mostly the same job as
your for.every.part loop test.  However the proposal does not include facilities for
replace/delete/enclosing body parts.

I think my proposal allows significant extra message matching capabilities with less additional syntax,
so I think it would be good if we could go with testing syntax more along the lines of what has already been
proposed there.

Perhaps there's really two I-Drafts at play here, a written up version of my proposal for testing body
parts, and then an additional one specifying the ability to replace/delete/enclose body parts which
requires a "select" body part concept.  Maybe a foreach test, that is used instead of "if".  Then where you have:

   for.every.part {
       if anyof ( part :subtype :is "jpeg", part :filename :matches "*.jpg" {
           replace "Attachment removed by user filter";
       }
   }

We'd have this instead:

   foreach anyof :bodyparts (header :value :matches "Content-Type" "*/jpeg" ,
                                              header :parameter "filename" :matches "Content-Disposition" "*.jpg" ) {
       replace "Attachment removed by user filter";
   }

Cyrus, I expected you'd re-release the draft-daboo-sieve-mime-00.txt I-Draft encorporating all the
feedback but don't see a version 01.txt.  Should I do this?

Nigel