duplicate suppression, sieve, loops, redirect and lost email

[Bryntez]

> Rob Siemborski wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Ken Murchison wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It already does keep track of msgid/rcpt pairs for redirect, but I still
> >>don't see how this helps us.  How does the script know that it
> >>redirected back to itself?  Perhaps adding the server's hostname to the
> >>X-Sieve header would help us determine that this message is coming back
> >>to us via a loop.
> >
> >
> > I don't think this is good enough, since I could have:
> >
> > redirect "leg+cyrus at andrew.cmu.edu"
> >
> > in my sieve script, which (if only the server name was included) would
> > then get dropped (or bounced or whatever).
> >
> > However, putting the expected rcpt-to value in X-Sieve might be
> > interesting, since then we have a user and a host name that has already
> > seen the message.
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > Rob Siemborski * Andrew Systems Group * Cyert Hall 207 * 412-268-7456
> > Research Systems Programmer * /usr/contributed Gatekeeper
> >
> >
>
> I'm not sure I see the problem here...
>
> What I'm suggesting is a lot simpler: when a message is redirected by
> the sieve script, it's message id is stored.
>
> If, during a subsequent invocation of the script, the same message id is
> requested to be redirected again, the redirection is ignored (or turned
> into a keep).

Sounds like a good idea...


> For this purpose, it doesn't matter where the message was redirected
> _to_ the first time, because it's obvious that somehow it came back to
> the same mailbox since otherwise this script wouldn't be processing the
> message.
> This would even handle the case where the message gets redirected by
> multiple scripts only to end up back at the original mailbox again.
>

Reg. "stupid users" redirecting mail to themselves via sieve:
There's another example that I'd like to add, that is general - reg. not
only sieve:

A user have his own "private-mail" on a mailserver somewhere, and have set
this
"INBOX" to redirect all "private-mail" to his "work-mail" on a mailserver
elsewhere.
He then (because he's a human) makes a mistake and desides to redirect his
"work-mail" to his "private-mail". Cause he forgot.....
Then we have a general mail-loop, don't you agree ?

So if cyrus (sieve) could break up this loop after the first loop, it would
merely
be another advantage reg. why companies rather should migrate to Cyrus Imap
:-)

bryntez