Subject: [apps-discuss] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-appsawg-sieve-duplicate-07: (with COMMENT)

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:00:22 -0700

Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-appsawg-sieve-duplicate-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-sieve-duplicate/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no objection to this extension; I think it will be helpful for
some folks. Interestingly, I can't see ever using it myself: When I get
duplicates from a mailing list, I *always* want the one that was sent
from the list, with the List-* header fields on it, and *not* the one
sent directly to me. Unfortunately, the one from the list is almost
always going to arrive after the one sent directly to me, and the
extension doesn't give me enough state to find the message(s) that came
in earlier so I can decide which one to keep. But like I said, I can see
others using this.

As to specific comments:

   As a side-effect, the "duplicate" test adds the message ID to an
   internal duplicate tracking list once the Sieve execution finishes
   successfully.

I think this may have been mentioned in response to someone else's
comment, but perhaps this should be:

   As a side-effect, the "duplicate" test adds a unique identifier
   (again, by default the contents of the Message-ID header field) to an
   internal duplicate tracking list once the Sieve execution finishes
   successfully.

And then change other occurrences of "message ID" to "unique identifier"
elsewhere in the document as appropriate.

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 18:36:46 -0700 (PDT)

> in earlier so I can decide which one to keep. But like I said, I can see

I note in that this particular issue was discussed at some length on the list.
Unfortunately providing a mechanism capable of doing what Pete (and others,
myself included) want is quite nontrivial given the current architecture of
email.

>    internal duplicate tracking list once the Sieve execution finishes

Barry (I think) suggested text earlier that addresses this.

> elsewhere in the document as appropriate.

That's a good idea.

				Ned

---

From: Stephan Bosch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 10:14:59 +0200

Hi Pete, Ned,

>> elsewhere in the document as appropriate.

Applied in -08.

Regards,

Stephan.