Re: Sieve library

[Jakob 'sparky' Kaivo]

On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 11:57:27PM -0400, Sam Roberts wrote:
> 
> However, the daemon I describe is a "killer app". One of the most common
> questions on the mutt mailing lists is "how do I filter my mail". The
> answer is almost always "procmail". This is useless advice for many
> people, specifically all those whos companies IMAP servers don't or can't
> run procmail. People like me! So, we need to filter mail on the IMAP
> server, from a local machine, since we can't replace the MDA.
> 
> The next suggestion is usually run fetchmail to pull it to your local
> machine, and setup procmail there. But I *like* having my mail in an
> IMAP mailbox, I want it there, I just want it filtered.
> 
> Anyhow, that's where I'm trying to go first with sieve. And I think
> modifying it to act as an MDA would be great, I probably will, but
> I'm trying to work towards this daemon, because it fills a niche where
> there is no tool currently in existence. That's why I think it's a
> killer app, I think there's a lot of latent interest. For that matter,
> it's pretty close to a fetchmail replacement, too. Slightly different
> usage pattern, wouldn't do a bunch of cool things that fetchmail does,
> but for the basic job of bringing your mail down to your machine, you
> could do that with this daemon, and it would filter at the same time!

That sounds cool, but after my looking at Sieve, it seems to be more
limited than procmail. For example, this is my entirce .procmailrc
(with my comments removed):

MAILDIR=$HOME/.mail
DEFAULT=$MAILDIR/INBOX

:0:
* (^X-(Loop|BeenThere): |Sender: owner-)\/.+
{
   FILE=`echo $MATCH | sed -e 's/\(.*\)@\(.*\)/\2\/\1/'`

   :0:
   * ? test -d `dirname $FILE` || mkdir -p `dirname $FILE`
   $FILE
}

:0:
* ^FROM_MAILER
Junk

This matches every mailing list I am on and puts it in
~/.mail/<domain>/<address> (a slight bit of magic is needed since
procmail won't automatically create directories, that is the test
... line). From what I understood of the RFC, Sieve doesn't appear to
support this kind of matching and manipulation, but I would need a
seperate rule for every single list I am on. Am I wrong?

-- sparky