From 1a1dc484089b02d2d25c773cc4b9c4d14f3c06a8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:41:39 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Forgot to add new files.
---
doc/rfc | 2522 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
sieve/tests/encoded-character.sieve | 1 +
src/lib-sieve/ext-encoded-character.c | 46 +
3 files changed, 2569 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 doc/rfc
create mode 100644 sieve/tests/encoded-character.sieve
create mode 100644 src/lib-sieve/ext-encoded-character.c
diff --git a/doc/rfc b/doc/rfc
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..215cb8e71
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc
@@ -0,0 +1,2522 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group P. Guenther
+Internet-Draft Sendmail, Inc.
+Intended status: Standards Track T. Showalter
+Expires: April 2008 Editors
+Obsoletes: 3028 (if approved) October 2007
+
+
+ Sieve: An Email Filtering Language
+ draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-13.txt
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+ By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
+ applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
+ have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
+ aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
+
+ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
+ Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
+ other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
+ Drafts.
+
+ Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
+ and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
+ time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
+ material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
+
+ The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
+ http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
+
+ The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
+ http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
+
+ A revised version of this draft document will be submitted to the RFC
+ editor as a Standard Track RFC for the Internet Community.
+ Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested, and should
+ be sent to ietf-mta-filters@imc.org. Distribution of this memo is
+ unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+ Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
+
+Abstract
+
+ This document describes a language for filtering email messages at
+ time of final delivery. It is designed to be implementable on either
+ a mail client or mail server. It is meant to be extensible, simple,
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 1]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ and independent of access protocol, mail architecture, and operating
+ system. It is suitable for running on a mail server where users may
+ not be allowed to execute arbitrary programs, such as on black box
+ Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) servers, as the base language
+ has no variables, loops, or ability to shell out to external
+ programs.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. Introduction ........................................... 3
+ 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..................... 4
+ 1.2. Example mail messages ................................. 5
+ 2. Design ................................................. 6
+ 2.1. Form of the Language .................................. 6
+ 2.2. Whitespace ............................................ 6
+ 2.3. Comments .............................................. 6
+ 2.4. Literal Data .......................................... 7
+ 2.4.1. Numbers ............................................... 7
+ 2.4.2. Strings ............................................... 7
+ 2.4.2.1. String Lists .......................................... 8
+ 2.4.2.2. Headers ............................................... 9
+ 2.4.2.3. Addresses ............................................. 9
+ 2.4.2.4. Encoding characters using "encoded-character" ......... 10
+ 2.5. Tests ................................................. 11
+ 2.5.1. Test Lists ............................................ 11
+ 2.6. Arguments ............................................. 11
+ 2.6.1. Positional Arguments .................................. 11
+ 2.6.2. Tagged Arguments ...................................... 12
+ 2.6.3. Optional Arguments .................................... 12
+ 2.6.4. Types of Arguments .................................... 12
+ 2.7. String Comparison ..................................... 13
+ 2.7.1. Match Type ............................................ 13
+ 2.7.2. Comparisons Across Character Sets ..................... 14
+ 2.7.3. Comparators ........................................... 15
+ 2.7.4. Comparisons Against Addresses ......................... 16
+ 2.8. Blocks ................................................ 16
+ 2.9. Commands .............................................. 16
+ 2.10. Evaluation ............................................ 17
+ 2.10.1. Action Interaction .................................... 17
+ 2.10.2. Implicit Keep ......................................... 17
+ 2.10.3. Message Uniqueness in a Mailbox ....................... 18
+ 2.10.4. Limits on Numbers of Actions .......................... 18
+ 2.10.5. Extensions and Optional Features ...................... 18
+ 2.10.6. Errors ................................................ 19
+ 2.10.7. Limits on Execution ................................... 19
+ 3. Control Commands ....................................... 20
+ 3.1. Control if ............................................ 20
+ 3.2. Control require ....................................... 21
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 2]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ 3.3. Control stop .......................................... 21
+ 4. Action Commands ........................................ 21
+ 4.1. Action fileinto ....................................... 22
+ 4.2. Action redirect ....................................... 22
+ 4.3. Action keep ........................................... 23
+ 4.4. Action discard ........................................ 24
+ 5. Test Commands .......................................... 24
+ 5.1. Test address .......................................... 25
+ 5.2. Test allof ............................................ 25
+ 5.3. Test anyof ............................................ 26
+ 5.4. Test envelope ......................................... 26
+ 5.5. Test exists ........................................... 27
+ 5.6. Test false ............................................ 27
+ 5.7. Test header ........................................... 27
+ 5.8. Test not .............................................. 28
+ 5.9. Test size ............................................. 28
+ 5.10. Test true ............................................. 29
+ 6. Extensibility .......................................... 29
+ 6.1. Capability String ..................................... 29
+ 6.2. IANA Considerations ................................... 30
+ 6.2.1. Template for Capability Registrations ................. 30
+ 6.2.2. Handling of Existing Capability Registrations ......... 31
+ 6.2.3. Initial Capability Registrations ...................... 31
+ 6.3. Capability Transport .................................. 32
+ 7. Transmission ........................................... 32
+ 8. Parsing ................................................ 32
+ 8.1. Lexical Tokens ........................................ 33
+ 8.2. Grammar ............................................... 35
+ 9. Extended Example ....................................... 35
+ 10. Security Considerations ................................ 36
+ 11. Acknowledgments ........................................ 38
+ 12. Editors' Addresses ..................................... 38
+ 13. Normative References ................................... 38
+ 14. Informative References ................................. 39
+ 15. Changes from RFC 3028 .................................. 39
+ 16. Full Copyright Statement ............................... 40
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ This memo documents a language that can be used to create filters for
+ electronic mail. It is not tied to any particular operating system
+ or mail architecture. It requires the use of [IMAIL]-compliant
+ messages, but should otherwise generalize to many systems.
+
+ The language is powerful enough to be useful but limited in order to
+ allow for a safe server-side filtering system. The intention is to
+ make it impossible for users to do anything more complex (and
+ dangerous) than write simple mail filters, along with facilitating
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 3]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ the use of GUIs for filter creation and manipulation. The base
+ language was not designed to be Turing-complete: it does not have a
+ loop control structure or functions.
+
+ Scripts written in Sieve are executed during final delivery, when the
+ message is moved to the user-accessible mailbox. In systems where
+ the Mail Transfer Agent (MTA) does final delivery, such as
+ traditional Unix mail, it is reasonable to filter when the MTA
+ deposits mail into the user's mailbox.
+
+ There are a number of reasons to use a filtering system. Mail
+ traffic for most users has been increasing due to increased usage of
+ email, the emergence of unsolicited email as a form of advertising,
+ and increased usage of mailing lists.
+
+ Experience at Carnegie Mellon has shown that if a filtering system is
+ made available to users, many will make use of it in order to file
+ messages from specific users or mailing lists. However, many others
+ did not make use of the Andrew system's FLAMES filtering language
+ [FLAMES] due to difficulty in setting it up.
+
+ Because of the expectation that users will make use of filtering if
+ it is offered and easy to use, this language has been made simple
+ enough to allow many users to make use of it, but rich enough that it
+ can be used productively. However, it is expected that GUI-based
+ editors will be the preferred way of editing filters for a large
+ number of users.
+
+1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
+
+ In the sections of this document that discuss the requirements of
+ various keywords and operators, the following conventions have been
+ adopted.
+
+ The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+ "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+ document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS].
+
+ Each section on a command (test, action, or control) has a line
+ labeled "Usage:". This line describes the usage of the command,
+ including its name and its arguments. Required arguments are listed
+ inside angle brackets ("<" and ">"). Optional arguments are listed
+ inside square brackets ("[" and "]"). Each argument is followed by
+ its type, so "<key: string>" represents an argument called "key" that
+ is a string. Literal strings are represented with double-quoted
+ strings. Alternatives are separated with slashes, and parenthesis
+ are used for grouping, similar to [ABNF].
+
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 4]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ In the "Usage:" line, there are three special pieces of syntax that
+ are frequently repeated, MATCH-TYPE, COMPARATOR, and ADDRESS-PART.
+ These are discussed in sections 2.7.1, 2.7.3, and 2.7.4,
+ respectively.
+
+ The formal grammar for these commands is defined in section 10 and is
+ the authoritative reference on how to construct commands, but the
+ formal grammar does not specify the order, semantics, number or types
+ of arguments to commands, nor the legal command names. The intent is
+ to allow for extension without changing the grammar.
+
+1.2. Example mail messages
+
+ The following mail messages will be used throughout this document in
+ examples.
+
+ Message A
+ -----------------------------------------------------------
+ Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:06:31 -0800 (PST)
+ From: coyote@desert.example.org
+ To: roadrunner@acme.example.com
+ Subject: I have a present for you
+
+ Look, I'm sorry about the whole anvil thing, and I really
+ didn't mean to try and drop it on you from the top of the
+ cliff. I want to try to make it up to you. I've got some
+ great birdseed over here at my place--top of the line
+ stuff--and if you come by, I'll have it all wrapped up
+ for you. I'm really sorry for all the problems I've caused
+ for you over the years, but I know we can work this out.
+ --
+ Wile E. Coyote "Super Genius" coyote@desert.example.org
+ -----------------------------------------------------------
+
+ Message B
+ -----------------------------------------------------------
+ From: youcouldberich!@reply-by-postal-mail.invalid
+ Sender: b1ff@de.res.example.com
+ To: rube@landru.example.com
+ Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 18:26:10 -0800
+ Subject: $$$ YOU, TOO, CAN BE A MILLIONAIRE! $$$
+
+ YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS, BUT I DOUBT
+ IT! SO JUST POST THIS TO SIX HUNDRED NEWSGROUPS! IT WILL
+ GUARANTEE THAT YOU GET AT LEAST FIVE RESPONSES WITH MONEY!
+ MONEY! MONEY! COLD HARD CASH! YOU WILL RECEIVE OVER
+ $20,000 IN LESS THAN TWO MONTHS! AND IT'S LEGAL!!!!!!!!!
+ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111!!!!!!!11111111111!!1 JUST
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 5]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ SEND $5 IN SMALL, UNMARKED BILLS TO THE ADDRESSES BELOW!
+ -----------------------------------------------------------
+
+2. Design
+
+2.1. Form of the Language
+
+ The language consists of a set of commands. Each command consists of
+ a set of tokens delimited by whitespace. The command identifier is
+ the first token and it is followed by zero or more argument tokens.
+ Arguments may be literal data, tags, blocks of commands, or test
+ commands.
+
+ With the exceptions of strings and comments, the language is limited
+ to US-ASCII characters. Strings and comments may contain octets
+ outside the US-ASCII range. Specifically, they will normally be in
+ UTF-8, as specified in [UTF-8]. NUL (US-ASCII 0) is never permitted
+ in scripts, while CR and LF can only appear as the CRLF line ending.
+
+ While this specification permits arbitrary octets to appear in
+ sieve scripts inside strings and comments, this has made it
+ difficult to robustly handle sieve scripts in programs that are
+ sensitive to the encodings used. The "encoded-character"
+ capability (section 2.4.2.4) provides an alternative means of
+ representing such octets in strings using just US-ASCII
+ characters. As such, the use of non-UTF-8 text in scripts should
+ be considered a deprecated feature that may be abandoned.
+
+ Tokens other than strings are considered case-insensitive.
+
+2.2. Whitespace
+
+ Whitespace is used to separate tokens. Whitespace is made up of
+ tabs, newlines (CRLF, never just CR or LF), and the space character.
+ The amount of whitespace used is not significant.
+
+2.3. Comments
+
+ Two types of comments are offered. Comments are semantically
+ equivalent to whitespace and can be used anyplace that whitespace is
+ (with one exception in multi-line strings, as described in the
+ grammar).
+
+ Hash comments begin with a "#" character that is not contained within
+ a string and continue until the next CRLF.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 6]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ Example: if size :over 100k { # this is a comment
+ discard;
+ }
+
+ Bracketed comments begin with the token "/*" and end with "*/"
+ outside of a string. Bracketed comments may span multiple lines.
+ Bracketed comments do not nest.
+
+ Example: if size :over 100K { /* this is a comment
+ this is still a comment */ discard /* this is a comment
+ */ ;
+ }
+
+2.4. Literal Data
+
+ Literal data means data that is not executed, merely evaluated "as
+ is", to be used as arguments to commands. Literal data is limited to
+ numbers, strings, and string lists.
+
+2.4.1. Numbers
+
+ Numbers are given as ordinary decimal numbers. As a shorthand for
+ expressing larger values, such as message sizes, a suffix of "K",
+ "M", or "G" MAY be appended to indicate a multiple of a power of two.
+ To be comparable with the power-of-two-based versions of SI units
+ that computers frequently use, "K" specifies kibi-, or 1,024 (2^10)
+ times the value of the number; "M" specifies mebi-, or 1,048,576
+ (2^20) times the value of the number; and "G" specifies gibi-, or
+ 1,073,741,824 (2^30) times the value of the number [BINARY-SI].
+
+ Implementations MUST support integer values in the inclusive range
+ zero to 2,147,483,647 (2^31 - 1), but MAY support larger values.
+
+ Only non-negative integers are permitted by this specification.
+
+2.4.2. Strings
+
+ Scripts involve large numbers of string values as they are used for
+ pattern matching, addresses, textual bodies, etc. Typically, short
+ quoted strings suffice for most uses, but a more convenient form is
+ provided for longer strings such as bodies of messages.
+
+ A quoted string starts and ends with a single double quote (the <">
+ character, US-ASCII 34). A backslash ("\", US-ASCII 92) inside of a
+ quoted string is followed by either another backslash or a double
+ quote. These two-character sequences represent a single backslash or
+ double quote within the value, respectively.
+
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 7]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ Scripts SHOULD NOT escape other characters with a backslash.
+
+ An undefined escape sequence (such as "\a" in a context where "a" has
+ no special meaning) is interpreted as if there were no backslash (in
+ this case, "\a" is just "a"), though that may be changed by
+ extensions.
+
+ Non-printing characters such as tabs, CRLF, and control characters
+ are permitted in quoted strings. Quoted strings MAY span multiple
+ lines. An unencoded NUL (US-ASCII 0) is not allowed in strings, see
+ section 2.4.2.4 for how it can be encoded.
+
+ As message header data is converted to [UTF-8] for comparison (see
+ section 2.7.2), most string values will use the UTF-8 encoding.
+ However, implementations MUST accept all strings that match the
+ grammar in section 8. The ability to use non-UTF-8 encoded strings
+ matches existing practice and has proven to be useful both in tests
+ for invalid data and in arguments containing raw MIME parts for
+ extension actions that generate outgoing messages.
+
+ For entering larger amounts of text, such as an email message, a
+ multi-line form is allowed. It starts with the keyword "text:",
+ followed by a CRLF, and ends with the sequence of a CRLF, a single
+ period, and another CRLF. The CRLF before the final period is
+ considered part of the value. In order to allow the message to
+ contain lines with a single-dot, lines are dot-stuffed. That is,
+ when composing a message body, an extra `.' is added before each line
+ which begins with a `.'. When the server interprets the script,
+ these extra dots are removed. Note that a line that begins with a
+ dot followed by a non-dot character is not interpreted dot-stuffed;
+ that is, ".foo" is interpreted as ".foo". However, because this is
+ potentially ambiguous, scripts SHOULD be properly dot-stuffed so such
+ lines do not appear.
+
+ Note that a hashed comment or whitespace may occur in between the
+ "text:" and the CRLF, but not within the string itself. Bracketed
+ comments are not allowed here.
+
+2.4.2.1. String Lists
+
+ When matching patterns, it is frequently convenient to match against
+ groups of strings instead of single strings. For this reason, a list
+ of strings is allowed in many tests, implying that if the test is
+ true using any one of the strings, then the test is true.
+
+ For instance, the test `header :contains ["To", "Cc"]
+ ["me@example.com", "me00@landru.example.com"]' is true if either a To
+ header or Cc header of the input message contains either of the email
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 8]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ addresses "me@example.com" or "me00@landru.example.com".
+
+ Conversely, in any case where a list of strings is appropriate, a
+ single string is allowed without being a member of a list: it is
+ equivalent to a list with a single member. This means that the test
+ `exists "To"' is equivalent to the test `exists ["To"]'.
+
+2.4.2.2. Headers
+
+ Headers are a subset of strings. In the Internet Message
+ Specification [IMAIL], each header line is allowed to have whitespace
+ nearly anywhere in the line, including after the field name and
+ before the subsequent colon. Extra spaces between the header name
+ and the ":" in a header field are ignored.
+
+ A header name never contains a colon. The "From" header refers to a
+ line beginning "From:" (or "From :", etc.). No header will match
+ the string "From:" due to the trailing colon.
+
+ Similarly, no header will match a syntactically invalid header name.
+ An implementation MUST NOT cause an error for syntactically invalid
+ header names in tests.
+
+ Header lines are unfolded as described in [IMAIL] section 2.2.3.
+ Interpretation of header data SHOULD be done according to [MIME3]
+ section 6.2 (see 2.7.2 below for details).
+
+2.4.2.3. Addresses
+
+ A number of commands call for email addresses, which are also a
+ subset of strings. When these addresses are used in outbound
+ contexts, addresses must be compliant with [IMAIL], but are further
+ constrained within this document. Using the symbols defined in
+ [IMAIL], section 3, the syntax of an address is:
+
+ sieve-address = addr-spec ; simple address
+ / phrase "<" addr-spec ">" ; name & addr-spec
+
+ That is, routes and group syntax are not permitted. If multiple
+ addresses are required, use a string list. Named groups are not
+ permitted.
+
+ It is an error for a script to execute an action with a value for use
+ as an outbound address that doesn't match the "sieve-address" syntax.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 9]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+2.4.2.4. Encoding characters using "encoded-character"
+
+ When the "encoded-character" extension is in effect, certain
+ character sequences in strings are replaced by their decoded value.
+ This happens after escape sequences are interpreted and dot-
+ unstuffing has been done. Implementations SHOULD support "encoded-
+ character".
+
+ Arbitrary octets can be embedded in strings by using the syntax
+ encoded-arb-octets. The sequence is replaced by the octets with the
+ hexadecimal values given by each hex-pair.
+
+ blank = WSP / CRLF
+ encoded-arb-octets = "${hex:" hex-pair-seq "}"
+ hex-pair-seq = *blank hex-pair *(1*blank hex-pair) *blank
+ hex-pair = 1*2HEXDIG
+
+ It may be inconvenient or undesirable to enter Unicode characters
+ verbatim and for these cases the syntax encoded-unicode-char can be
+ used. The sequence is replaced by the UTF-8 encoding of the
+ specified Unicode characters, which are identified by the hexadecimal
+ value of unicode-hex.
+
+ encoded-unicode-char = "${unicode:" unicode-hex-seq "}"
+ unicode-hex-seq = *blank unicode-hex
+ *(1*blank unicode-hex) *blank
+ unicode-hex = 1*HEXDIG
+
+ It is an error for a script to use a hexadecimal value that isn't in
+ either the range 0 to D7FF or the range E000 to 10FFFF. (The range
+ D800 to DFFF is excluded as those character numbers are only used as
+ part of the UTF-16 encoding form and are not applicable to the UTF-8
+ encoding that the syntax here represents.)
+
+ Note: Implementations MUST NOT raise an error for an out of range
+ Unicode value unless the sequence containing it is well-formed
+ according to the grammar.
+
+ The capability string for use with the require command is "encoded-
+ character".
+
+ In the following script, message B is discarded, since the specified
+ test string is equivalent to "$$$".
+
+ Example: require "encoded-character";
+ if header :contains "Subject" "$${hex:24 24}" {
+ discard;
+ }
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 10]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ The following examples demonstrate valid and invalid encodings and
+ how they are handled:
+
+ "$${hex:40}" -> "$@"
+ "${hex: 40 }" -> "@"
+ "${HEX: 40}" -> "@"
+ "${hex:40" -> "${hex:40"
+ "${hex:400}" -> "${hex:400}"
+ "${hex:4${hex:30}}" -> "${hex:40}"
+ "${unicode:40}" -> "@"
+ "${ unicode:40}" -> "${ unicode:40}"
+ "${UNICODE:40}" -> "@"
+ "${UnICoDE:0000040}" -> "@"
+ "${Unicode:40}" -> "@"
+ "${Unicode:Cool}" -> "${Unicode:Cool}"
+ "${unicode:200000}" -> error
+ "${Unicode:DF01} -> error
+
+2.5. Tests
+
+ Tests are given as arguments to commands in order to control their
+ actions. In this document, tests are given to if/elsif to decide
+ which block of code is run.
+
+2.5.1. Test Lists
+
+ Some tests ("allof" and "anyof", which implement logical "and" and
+ logical "or", respectively) may require more than a single test as an
+ argument. The test-list syntax element provides a way of grouping
+ tests as a comma separated list in parens.
+
+ Example: if anyof (not exists ["From", "Date"],
+ header :contains "from" "fool@example.com") {
+ discard;
+ }
+
+2.6. Arguments
+
+ In order to specify what to do, most commands take arguments. There
+ are three types of arguments: positional, tagged, and optional.
+
+ It is an error for a script, on a single command, to use conflicting
+ arguments or to use a tagged or optional argument more than once.
+
+2.6.1. Positional Arguments
+
+ Positional arguments are given to a command which discerns their
+ meaning based on their order. When a command takes positional
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 11]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ arguments, all positional arguments must be supplied and must be in
+ the order prescribed.
+
+2.6.2. Tagged Arguments
+
+ This document provides for tagged arguments in the style of
+ CommonLISP. These are also similar to flags given to commands in
+ most command-line systems.
+
+ A tagged argument is an argument for a command that begins with ":"
+ followed by a tag naming the argument, such as ":contains". This
+ argument means that zero or more of the next tokens have some
+ particular meaning depending on the argument. These next tokens may
+ be literal data but they are never blocks.
+
+ Tagged arguments are similar to positional arguments, except that
+ instead of the meaning being derived from the command, it is derived
+ from the tag.
+
+ Tagged arguments must appear before positional arguments, but they
+ may appear in any order with other tagged arguments. For simplicity
+ of the specification, this is not expressed in the syntax definitions
+ with commands, but they still may be reordered arbitrarily provided
+ they appear before positional arguments. Tagged arguments may be
+ mixed with optional arguments.
+
+ Tagged arguments SHOULD NOT take tagged arguments as arguments.
+
+2.6.3. Optional Arguments
+
+ Optional arguments are exactly like tagged arguments except that they
+ may be left out, in which case a default value is implied. Because
+ optional arguments tend to result in shorter scripts, they have been
+ used far more than tagged arguments.
+
+ One particularly noteworthy case is the ":comparator" argument, which
+ allows the user to specify which comparator [COLLATION] will be used
+ to compare two strings, since different languages may impose
+ different orderings on UTF-8 [UTF-8] strings.
+
+2.6.4. Types of Arguments
+
+ Abstractly, arguments may be literal data, tests, or blocks of
+ commands. In this way, an "if" control structure is merely a command
+ that happens to take a test and a block as arguments and may execute
+ the block of code.
+
+ However, this abstraction is ambiguous from a parsing standpoint.
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 12]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ The grammar in section 9.2 presents a parsable version of this:
+ Arguments are string-lists, numbers, and tags, which may be followed
+ by a test or a test-list, which may be followed by a block of
+ commands. No more than one test or test list, nor more than one
+ block of commands, may be used, and commands that end with a block of
+ commands do not end with semicolons.
+
+2.7. String Comparison
+
+ When matching one string against another, there are a number of ways
+ of performing the match operation. These are accomplished with three
+ types of matches: an exact match, a substring match, and a wildcard
+ glob-style match. These are described below.
+
+ In order to provide for matches between character sets and case
+ insensitivity, Sieve uses the comparators defined in the Internet
+ Application Protocol Collation Registry [COLLATION].
+
+ However, when a string represents the name of a header, the
+ comparator is never user-specified. Header comparisons are always
+ done with the "i;ascii-casemap" operator, i.e., case-insensitive
+ comparisons, because this is the way things are defined in the
+ message specification [IMAIL].
+
+2.7.1. Match Type
+
+ Commands which perform string comparisons may have an optional match
+ type argument. The three match types in this specification are ":is",
+ ":contains", and ":matches".
+
+ The ":contains" match type describes a substring match. If the value
+ argument contains the key argument as a substring, the match is true.
+ For instance, the string "frobnitzm" contains "frob" and "nit", but
+ not "fbm". The empty key ("") is contained in all values.
+
+ The ":is" match type describes an absolute match; if the contents of
+ the first string are absolutely the same as the contents of the
+ second string, they match. Only the string "frobnitzm" is the string
+ "frobnitzm". The empty key ":is" and only ":is" the empty value.
+
+ The ":matches" match type specifies a wildcard match using the
+ characters "*" and "?"; the entire value must be matched. "*"
+ matches zero or more characters in the value and "?" matches a single
+ character in the value, where the comparator that is used (see 2.7.3)
+ defines what a character is. For example, the comparators "i;octet"
+ and "i;ascii-casemap" define a character to be a single octet so "?"
+ will always match exactly one octet when one of those comparators is
+ in use. In contrast, a Unicode-based comparator would define a
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 13]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ character to be any UTF-8 octet sequence encoding one Unicode
+ character and thus "?" may match more than one octet. "?" and "*"
+ may be escaped as "\\?" and "\\*" in strings to match against
+ themselves. The first backslash escapes the second backslash;
+ together, they escape the "*". This is awkward, but it is
+ commonplace in several programming languages that use globs and
+ regular expressions.
+
+ In order to specify what type of match is supposed to happen,
+ commands that support matching take optional arguments ":matches",
+ ":is", and ":contains". Commands default to using ":is" matching if
+ no match type argument is supplied. Note that these modifiers
+ interact with comparators; in particular, only comparators that
+ support the "substring match" operation are suitable for matching
+ with ":contains" or ":matches". It is an error to use a comparator
+ with ":contains" or ":matches" that is not compatible with it.
+
+ It is an error to give more than one of these arguments to a given
+ command.
+
+ For convenience, the "MATCH-TYPE" syntax element is defined here as
+ follows:
+
+ Syntax: ":is" / ":contains" / ":matches"
+
+2.7.2. Comparisons Across Character Sets
+
+ Messages may involve a number of character sets. In order for
+ comparisons to work across character sets, implementations SHOULD
+ implement the following behavior:
+
+ Comparisons are performed on octets. Implementations convert text
+ from header fields in all charsets [MIME3] to Unicode, encoded as
+ UTF-8, as input to the comparator (see 2.7.3). Implementations
+ MUST be capable of converting US-ASCII, ISO-8859-1, the US-ASCII
+ subset of ISO-8859-* character sets, and UTF-8. Text that the
+ implementation cannot convert to Unicode for any reason MAY be
+ treated as plain US-ASCII (including any [MIME3] syntax) or
+ processed according to local conventions. An encoded NUL octet
+ (character zero) SHOULD NOT cause early termination of the header
+ content being compared against.
+
+ If implementations fail to support the above behavior, they MUST
+ conform to the following:
+
+ No two strings can be considered equal if one contains octets
+ greater than 127.
+
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 14]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+2.7.3. Comparators
+
+ In order to allow for language-independent, case-independent matches,
+ the match type may be coupled with a comparator name. The Internet
+ Application Protocol Collation Registry [COLLATION] provides the
+ framework for describing and naming comparators.
+
+ All implementations MUST support the "i;octet" comparator (simply
+ compares octets) and the "i;ascii-casemap" comparator (which treats
+ uppercase and lowercase characters in the US-ASCII subset of UTF-8 as
+ the same). If left unspecified, the default is "i;ascii-casemap".
+
+ Some comparators may not be usable with substring matches; that is,
+ they may only work with ":is". It is an error to try and use a
+ comparator with ":matches" or ":contains" that is not compatible with
+ it.
+
+ Sieve treats a comparator result of "undefined" the same as a result
+ of "no-match". That is, this base specification does not provide any
+ means to directly detect invalid comparator input.
+
+ A comparator is specified by the ":comparator" option with commands
+ that support matching. This option is followed by a string providing
+ the name of the comparator to be used. For convenience, the syntax
+ of a comparator is abbreviated to "COMPARATOR", and (repeated in
+ several tests) is as follows:
+
+ Syntax: ":comparator" <comparator-name: string>
+
+ So in this example,
+
+ Example: if header :contains :comparator "i;octet" "Subject"
+ "MAKE MONEY FAST" {
+ discard;
+ }
+
+ would discard any message with subjects like "You can MAKE MONEY
+ FAST", but not "You can Make Money Fast", since the comparator used
+ is case-sensitive.
+
+ Comparators other than "i;octet" and "i;ascii-casemap" must be
+ declared with require, as they are extensions. If a comparator
+ declared with require is not known, it is an error, and execution
+ fails. If the comparator is not declared with require, it is also an
+ error, even if the comparator is supported. (See 2.10.5.)
+
+ Both ":matches" and ":contains" match types are compatible with the
+ "i;octet" and "i;ascii-casemap" comparators and may be used with
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 15]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ them.
+
+ It is an error to give more than one of these arguments to a given
+ command.
+
+2.7.4. Comparisons Against Addresses
+
+ Addresses are one of the most frequent things represented as strings.
+ These are structured, and being able to compare against the local-
+ part or the domain of an address is useful, so some tests that act
+ exclusively on addresses take an additional optional argument that
+ specifies what the test acts on.
+
+ These optional arguments are ":localpart", ":domain", and ":all",
+ which act on the local-part (left-side), the domain part (right-
+ side), and the whole address.
+
+ If an address is not syntactically valid then it will not be matched
+ by tests specifying ":localpart" or ":domain".
+
+ The kind of comparison done, such as whether or not the test done is
+ case-insensitive, is specified as a comparator argument to the test.
+
+ If an optional address-part is omitted, the default is ":all".
+
+ It is an error to give more than one of these arguments to a given
+ command.
+
+ For convenience, the "ADDRESS-PART" syntax element is defined here as
+ follows:
+
+ Syntax: ":localpart" / ":domain" / ":all"
+
+2.8. Blocks
+
+ Blocks are sets of commands enclosed within curly braces and supplied
+ as the final argument to a command. Such a command is a control
+ structure: when executed it has control over the number of times the
+ commands in the block are executed.
+
+ With the commands supplied in this memo, there are no loops. The
+ control structures supplied--if, elsif, and else--run a block either
+ once or not at all.
+
+2.9. Commands
+
+ Sieve scripts are sequences of commands. Commands can take any of
+ the tokens above as arguments, and arguments may be either tagged or
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 16]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ positional arguments. Not all commands take all arguments.
+
+ There are three kinds of commands: test commands, action commands,
+ and control commands.
+
+ The simplest is an action command. An action command is an
+ identifier followed by zero or more arguments, terminated by a
+ semicolon. Action commands do not take tests or blocks as arguments.
+ The actions referenced in this document are:
+ - keep, to save the message in the default location
+ - fileinto, to save the message in a specific mailbox
+ - redirect, to forward the message to another address,
+ - discard, to silently throw away the message
+
+ A control command is a command that affects the parsing or the flow
+ of execution of the Sieve script in some way. A control structure is
+ a control command which ends with a block instead of a semicolon.
+
+ A test command is used as part of a control command. It is used to
+ specify whether or not the block of code given to the control command
+ is executed.
+
+2.10. Evaluation
+
+2.10.1. Action Interaction
+
+ Some actions cannot be used with other actions because the result
+ would be absurd. These restrictions are noted throughout this memo.
+
+ Extension actions MUST state how they interact with actions defined
+ in this specification.
+
+2.10.2. Implicit Keep
+
+ Previous experience with filtering systems suggests that cases tend
+ to be missed in scripts. To prevent errors, Sieve has an "implicit
+ keep".
+
+ An implicit keep is a keep action (see 4.4) performed in absence of
+ any action that cancels the implicit keep.
+
+ An implicit keep is performed if a message is not written to a
+ mailbox, redirected to a new address, or explicitly thrown out. That
+ is, if a fileinto, a keep, a redirect, or a discard is performed, an
+ implicit keep is not.
+
+ Some actions may be defined to not cancel the implicit keep. These
+ actions may not directly affect the delivery of a message, and are
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 17]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ used for their side effects. None of the actions specified in this
+ document meet that criteria, but extension actions may.
+
+ For instance, with any of the short messages offered above, the
+ following script produces no actions.
+
+ Example: if size :over 500K { discard; }
+
+ As a result, the implicit keep is taken.
+
+2.10.3. Message Uniqueness in a Mailbox
+
+ Implementations SHOULD NOT deliver a message to the same mailbox more
+ than once, even if a script explicitly asks for a message to be
+ written to a mailbox twice.
+
+ The test for equality of two messages is implementation-defined.
+
+ If a script asks for a message to be written to a mailbox twice, it
+ MUST NOT be treated as an error.
+
+2.10.4. Limits on Numbers of Actions
+
+ Site policy MAY limit the number of actions taken and MAY impose
+ restrictions on which actions can be used together. In the event
+ that a script hits a policy limit on the number of actions taken for
+ a particular message, an error occurs.
+
+ Implementations MUST allow at least one keep or one fileinto. If
+ fileinto is not implemented, implementations MUST allow at least one
+ keep.
+
+2.10.5. Extensions and Optional Features
+
+ Because of the differing capabilities of many mail systems, several
+ features of this specification are optional. Before any of these
+ extensions can be executed, they must be declared with the "require"
+ action.
+
+ If an extension is not enabled with "require", implementations MUST
+ treat it as if they did not support it at all. This protects scripts
+ from having their behavior altered by extensions which the script
+ author might not have even been aware of.
+
+ Implementations MUST NOT execute any Sieve script test or command
+ subsequent to "require" if one of the required extensions is
+ unavailable.
+
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 18]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ Note: The reason for this restriction is that prior experiences with
+ languages such as LISP and Tcl suggest that this is a workable
+ way of noting that a given script uses an extension.
+
+ Extensions which define actions MUST state how they interact with
+ actions discussed in the base specification.
+
+2.10.6. Errors
+
+ In any programming language, there are compile-time and run-time
+ errors.
+
+ Compile-time errors are ones in syntax that are detectable if a
+ syntax check is done.
+
+ Run-time errors are not detectable until the script is run. This
+ includes transient failures like disk full conditions, but also
+ includes issues like invalid combinations of actions.
+
+ When an error occurs in a Sieve script, all processing stops.
+
+ Implementations MAY choose to do a full parse, then evaluate the
+ script, then do all actions. Implementations might even go so far as
+ to ensure that execution is atomic (either all actions are executed
+ or none are executed).
+
+ Other implementations may choose to parse and run at the same time.
+ Such implementations are simpler, but have issues with partial
+ failure (some actions happen, others don't).
+
+ Implementations MUST perform syntactic, semantic, and run-time checks
+ on code that is actually executed. Implementations MAY perform those
+ checks or any part of them on code that is not reached during
+ execution.
+
+ When an error happens, implementations MUST notify the user that an
+ error occurred, which actions (if any) were taken, and do an implicit
+ keep.
+
+2.10.7. Limits on Execution
+
+ Implementations may limit certain constructs. However, this
+ specification places a lower bound on some of these limits.
+
+ Implementations MUST support fifteen levels of nested blocks.
+
+ Implementations MUST support fifteen levels of nested test lists.
+
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 19]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+3. Control Commands
+
+ Control structures are needed to allow for multiple and conditional
+ actions.
+
+3.1. Control if
+
+ There are three pieces to if: "if", "elsif", and "else". Each is
+ actually a separate command in terms of the grammar. However, an
+ elsif or else MUST only follow an if or elsif. An error occurs if
+ these conditions are not met.
+
+ Usage: if <test1: test> <block1: block>
+
+ Usage: elsif <test2: test> <block2: block>
+
+ Usage: else <block3: block>
+
+ The semantics are similar to those of any of the many other
+ programming languages these control structures appear in. When the
+ interpreter sees an "if", it evaluates the test associated with it.
+ If the test is true, it executes the block associated with it.
+
+ If the test of the "if" is false, it evaluates the test of the first
+ "elsif" (if any). If the test of "elsif" is true, it runs the
+ elsif's block. An elsif may be followed by an elsif, in which case,
+ the interpreter repeats this process until it runs out of elsifs.
+
+ When the interpreter runs out of elsifs, there may be an "else" case.
+ If there is, and none of the if or elsif tests were true, the
+ interpreter runs the else's block.
+
+ This provides a way of performing exactly one of the blocks in the
+ chain.
+
+ In the following example, both Message A and B are dropped.
+
+ Example: require "fileinto";
+ if header :contains "from" "coyote" {
+ discard;
+ } elsif header :contains ["subject"] ["$$$"] {
+ discard;
+ } else {
+ fileinto "INBOX";
+ }
+
+
+ When the script below is run over message A, it redirects the message
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 20]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ to acm@example.com; message B, to postmaster@example.com; any other
+ message is redirected to field@example.com.
+
+ Example: if header :contains ["From"] ["coyote"] {
+ redirect "acm@example.com";
+ } elsif header :contains "Subject" "$$$" {
+ redirect "postmaster@example.com";
+ } else {
+ redirect "field@example.com";
+ }
+
+ Note that this definition prohibits the "... else if ..." sequence
+ used by C. This is intentional, because this construct produces a
+ shift-reduce conflict.
+
+3.2. Control require
+
+ Usage: require <capabilities: string-list>
+
+ The require action notes that a script makes use of a certain
+ extension. Such a declaration is required to use the extension, as
+ discussed in section 2.10.5. Multiple capabilities can be declared
+ with a single require.
+
+ The require command, if present, MUST be used before anything other
+ than a require can be used. An error occurs if a require appears
+ after a command other than require.
+
+ Example: require ["fileinto", "reject"];
+
+ Example: require "fileinto";
+ require "vacation";
+
+3.3. Control stop
+
+ Usage: stop
+
+ The "stop" action ends all processing. If the implicit keep has not
+ been cancelled, then it is taken.
+
+4. Action Commands
+
+ This document supplies four actions that may be taken on a message:
+ keep, fileinto, redirect, and discard.
+
+ Implementations MUST support the "keep", "discard", and "redirect"
+ actions.
+
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 21]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ Implementations SHOULD support "fileinto".
+
+ Implementations MAY limit the number of certain actions taken (see
+ section 2.10.4).
+
+4.1. Action fileinto
+
+ Usage: fileinto <mailbox: string>
+
+ The "fileinto" action delivers the message into the specified
+ mailbox. Implementations SHOULD support fileinto, but in some
+ environments this may be impossible. Implementations MAY place
+ restrictions on mailbox names; use of an invalid mailbox name MAY be
+ treated as an error or result in delivery to an implementation-
+ defined mailbox. If the specified mailbox doesn't exist, the
+ implementation MAY treat it as an error, create the mailbox, or
+ deliver the message to an implementation-defined mailbox. If the
+ implementation uses a different encoding scheme than UTF-8 for
+ mailbox names, it SHOULD reencode the mailbox name from UTF-8 to its
+ encoding scheme. For example, the Internet Message Access Protocol
+ [IMAP] uses modified UTF-7, such that a mailbox argument of "odds &
+ ends" would appear in IMAP as "odds &- ends".
+
+ The capability string for use with the require command is "fileinto".
+
+ In the following script, message A is filed into mailbox
+ "INBOX.harassment".
+
+ Example: require "fileinto";
+ if header :contains ["from"] "coyote" {
+ fileinto "INBOX.harassment";
+ }
+
+4.2. Action redirect
+
+ Usage: redirect <address: string>
+
+ The "redirect" action is used to send the message to another user at
+ a supplied address, as a mail forwarding feature does. The
+ "redirect" action makes no changes to the message body or existing
+ headers, but it may add new headers. In particular, existing
+ Received headers MUST be preserved and the count of Received headers
+ in the outgoing message MUST be larger than the same count on the
+ message as received by the implementation. (An implementation that
+ adds a Received header before processing the message does not need to
+ add another when redirecting.)
+
+ The message is sent back out with the address from the redirect
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 22]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ command as an envelope recipient. Implementations MAY combine
+ separate redirects for a given message into a single submission with
+ multiple envelope recipients. (This is not an MUA-style forward,
+ which creates a new message with a different sender and message ID,
+ wrapping the old message in a new one.)
+
+ The envelope sender address on the outgoing message is chosen by the
+ sieve implementation. It MAY be copied from the message being
+ processed. However, if the message being processed has an empty
+ envelope sender address the outgoing message MUST also have an empty
+ envelope sender address. This last requirement is imposed to prevent
+ loops in the case where a message is redirected to an invalid address
+ when then returns a delivery status notification that also ends up
+ being redirected to the same invalid address.
+
+ The envelope sender address on the outgoing message is chosen by the
+ sieve implementation. It MAY be copied from the message being
+ processed.
+
+ A simple script can be used for redirecting all mail:
+
+ Example: redirect "bart@example.com";
+
+ Implementations MUST take measures to implement loop control,
+ possibly including adding headers to the message or counting Received
+ headers as specified in section 6.2 of [SMTP]. If an implementation
+ detects a loop, it causes an error.
+
+ Implementations MUST provide means of limiting the number of
+ redirects a Sieve script can perform. See Section 10 for more
+ details.
+
+ Implementations MAY ignore a redirect action silently due to policy
+ reasons. For example, an implementation MAY choose not to redirect
+ to an address that is known to be undeliverable. Any ignored redirect
+ MUST NOT cancel the implicit keep.
+
+4.3. Action keep
+
+ Usage: keep
+
+ The "keep" action is whatever action is taken in lieu of all other
+ actions, if no filtering happens at all; generally, this simply means
+ to file the message into the user's main mailbox. This command
+ provides a way to execute this action without needing to know the
+ name of the user's main mailbox, providing a way to call it without
+ needing to understand the user's setup, or the underlying mail
+ system.
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 23]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ For instance, in an implementation where the IMAP server is running
+ scripts on behalf of the user at time of delivery, a keep command is
+ equivalent to a fileinto "INBOX".
+
+ Example: if size :under 1M { keep; } else { discard; }
+
+ Note that the above script is identical to the one below.
+
+ Example: if not size :under 1M { discard; }
+
+4.4. Action discard
+
+ Usage: discard
+
+ Discard is used to silently throw away the message. It does so by
+ simply canceling the implicit keep. If discard is used with other
+ actions, the other actions still happen. Discard is compatible with
+ all other actions. (For instance fileinto+discard is equivalent to
+ fileinto.)
+
+ Discard MUST be silent; that is, it MUST NOT return a non-delivery
+ notification of any kind ([DSN], [MDN], or otherwise).
+
+ In the following script, any mail from "idiot@example.com" is thrown
+ out.
+
+ Example: if header :contains ["from"] ["idiot@example.com"] {
+ discard;
+ }
+
+ While an important part of this language, "discard" has the potential
+ to create serious problems for users: Students who leave themselves
+ logged in to an unattended machine in a public computer lab may find
+ their script changed to just "discard". In order to protect users in
+ this situation (along with similar situations), implementations MAY
+ keep messages destroyed by a script for an indefinite period, and MAY
+ disallow scripts that throw out all mail.
+
+5. Test Commands
+
+ Tests are used in conditionals to decide which part(s) of the
+ conditional to execute.
+
+ Implementations MUST support these tests: "address", "allof",
+ "anyof", "exists", "false", "header", "not", "size", and "true".
+
+ Implementations SHOULD support the "envelope" test.
+
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 24]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+5.1. Test address
+
+ Usage: address [COMPARATOR] [ADDRESS-PART] [MATCH-TYPE]
+ <header-list: string-list> <key-list: string-list>
+
+ The "address" test matches Internet addresses in structured headers
+ that contain addresses. It returns true if any header contains any
+ key in the specified part of the address, as modified by the
+ comparator and the match keyword. Whether there are other addresses
+ present in the header doesn't affect this test; this test does not
+ provide any way to determine whether an address is the only address
+ in a header.
+
+ Like envelope and header, this test returns true if any combination
+ of the header-list and key-list arguments match and false otherwise.
+
+ Internet email addresses [IMAIL] have the somewhat awkward
+ characteristic that the local-part to the left of the at-sign is
+ considered case sensitive, and the domain-part to the right of the
+ at-sign is case insensitive. The "address" command does not deal
+ with this itself, but provides the ADDRESS-PART argument for allowing
+ users to deal with it.
+
+ The address primitive never acts on the phrase part of an email
+ address, nor on comments within that address. It also never acts on
+ group names, although it does act on the addresses within the group
+ construct.
+
+ Implementations MUST restrict the address test to headers that
+ contain addresses, but MUST include at least From, To, Cc, Bcc,
+ Sender, Resent-From, Resent-To, and SHOULD include any other header
+ that utilizes an "address-list" structured header body.
+
+ Example: if address :is :all "from" "tim@example.com" {
+ discard;
+ }
+
+5.2. Test allof
+
+ Usage: allof <tests: test-list>
+
+ The "allof" test performs a logical AND on the tests supplied to it.
+
+ Example: allof (false, false) => false
+ allof (false, true) => false
+ allof (true, true) => true
+
+ The allof test takes as its argument a test-list.
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 25]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+5.3. Test anyof
+
+ Usage: anyof <tests: test-list>
+
+ The "anyof" test performs a logical OR on the tests supplied to it.
+
+ Example: anyof (false, false) => false
+ anyof (false, true) => true
+ anyof (true, true) => true
+
+5.4. Test envelope
+
+ Usage: envelope [COMPARATOR] [ADDRESS-PART] [MATCH-TYPE]
+ <envelope-part: string-list> <key-list: string-list>
+
+ The "envelope" test is true if the specified part of the [SMTP] (or
+ equivalent) envelope matches the specified key. This specification
+ defines the interpretation of the (case insensitive) "from" and "to"
+ envelope-parts. Additional envelope-parts may be defined by other
+ extensions; implementations SHOULD consider unknown envelope parts an
+ error.
+
+ If one of the envelope-part strings is (case insensitive) "from",
+ then matching occurs against the FROM address used in the SMTP MAIL
+ command. The null reverse-path is matched against as the empty
+ string, regardless of the ADDRESS-PART argument specified.
+
+ If one of the envelope-part strings is (case insensitive) "to", then
+ matching occurs against the TO address used in the SMTP RCPT command
+ that resulted in this message getting delivered to this user. Note
+ that only the most recent TO is available, and only the one relevant
+ to this user.
+
+ The envelope-part is a string list and may contain more than one
+ parameter, in which case all of the strings specified in the key-list
+ are matched against all parts given in the envelope-part list.
+
+ Like address and header, this test returns true if any combination of
+ the envelope-part list and key-list arguments match and false
+ otherwise.
+
+ All tests against envelopes MUST drop source routes.
+
+ If the SMTP transaction involved several RCPT commands, only the data
+ from the RCPT command that caused delivery to this user is available
+ in the "to" part of the envelope.
+
+ If a protocol other than SMTP is used for message transport,
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 26]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ implementations are expected to adapt this command appropriately.
+
+ The envelope command is optional. Implementations SHOULD support it,
+ but the necessary information may not be available in all cases. The
+ capability string for use with the require command is "envelope".
+
+ Example: require "envelope";
+ if envelope :all :is "from" "tim@example.com" {
+ discard;
+ }
+
+5.5. Test exists
+
+ Usage: exists <header-names: string-list>
+
+ The "exists" test is true if the headers listed in the header-names
+ argument exist within the message. All of the headers must exist or
+ the test is false.
+
+ The following example throws out mail that doesn't have a From header
+ and a Date header.
+
+ Example: if not exists ["From","Date"] {
+ discard;
+ }
+
+5.6. Test false
+
+ Usage: false
+
+ The "false" test always evaluates to false.
+
+5.7. Test header
+
+ Usage: header [COMPARATOR] [MATCH-TYPE]
+ <header-names: string-list> <key-list: string-list>
+
+ The "header" test evaluates to true if the value of any of the named
+ headers, ignoring leading and trailing whitespace, matches any key.
+ The type of match is specified by the optional match argument, which
+ defaults to ":is" if not specified, as specified in section 2.6.
+
+ Like address and envelope, this test returns true if any combination
+ of the header-names list and key-list arguments match and false
+ otherwise.
+
+ If a header listed in the header-names argument exists, it contains
+ the empty key (""). However, if the named header is not present, it
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 27]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ does not match any key, including the empty key. So if a message
+ contained the header
+
+ X-Caffeine: C8H10N4O2
+
+ these tests on that header evaluate as follows:
+
+ header :is ["X-Caffeine"] [""] => false
+ header :contains ["X-Caffeine"] [""] => true
+
+ Testing whether a given header is either absent or doesn't contain
+ any non-whitespace characters can be done using a negated "header"
+ test:
+
+ not header :matches "Cc" "?*"
+
+5.8. Test not
+
+ Usage: not <test1: test>
+
+ The "not" test takes some other test as an argument, and yields the
+ opposite result. "not false" evaluates to "true" and "not true"
+ evaluates to "false".
+
+5.9. Test size
+
+ Usage: size <":over" / ":under"> <limit: number>
+
+ The "size" test deals with the size of a message. It takes either a
+ tagged argument of ":over" or ":under", followed by a number
+ representing the size of the message.
+
+ If the argument is ":over", and the size of the message is greater
+ than the number provided, the test is true; otherwise, it is false.
+
+ If the argument is ":under", and the size of the message is less than
+ the number provided, the test is true; otherwise, it is false.
+
+ Exactly one of ":over" or ":under" must be specified, and anything
+ else is an error.
+
+ The size of a message is defined to be the number of octets in the
+ [IMAIL] representation of the message.
+
+ Note that for a message that is exactly 4,000 octets, the message is
+ neither ":over" nor ":under" 4000 octets.
+
+
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 28]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+5.10. Test true
+
+ Usage: true
+
+ The "true" test always evaluates to true.
+
+6. Extensibility
+
+ New control commands, actions, and tests can be added to the
+ language. Sites must make these features known to their users; this
+ document does not define a way to discover the list of extensions
+ supported by the server.
+
+ Any extensions to this language MUST define a capability string that
+ uniquely identifies that extension. Capability string are case-
+ sensitive; for example, "foo" and "FOO" are different capabilities.
+ If a new version of an extension changes the functionality of a
+ previously defined extension, it MUST use a different name.
+ Extensions may register a set of related capabilities by registering
+ just a unique prefix for them. The "comparator-" prefix is an
+ example of this. The prefix MUST end with a "-" and MUST NOT overlap
+ any existing registrations.
+
+ In a situation where there is a script submission protocol and an
+ extension advertisement mechanism aware of the details of this
+ language, scripts submitted can be checked against the mail server to
+ prevent use of an extension that the server does not support.
+
+ Extensions MUST state how they interact with constraints defined in
+ section 2.10, e.g., whether they cancel the implicit keep, and which
+ actions they are compatible and incompatible with. Extensions MUST
+ NOT change the behavior of the "require" control command or alter the
+ interpretation of the argument to the "require" control.
+
+ Extensions that can submit new email messages or otherwise generate
+ new protocol requests MUST consider loop suppression, at least to
+ document any security considerations.
+
+6.1. Capability String
+
+ Capability strings are typically short strings describing what
+ capabilities are supported by the server.
+
+ Capability strings beginning with "vnd." represent vendor-defined
+ extensions. Such extensions are not defined by Internet standards or
+ RFCs, but are still registered with IANA in order to prevent
+ conflicts. Extensions starting with "vnd." SHOULD be followed by the
+ name of the vendor and product, such as "vnd.acme.rocket-sled".
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 29]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ The following capability strings are defined by this document:
+
+ encoded-character
+ The string "encoded-character" indicates that the
+ implementation supports the interpretation of
+ "${hex:...}" and "${unicode:...}" in strings.
+
+ envelope The string "envelope" indicates that the implementation
+ supports the "envelope" command.
+
+ fileinto The string "fileinto" indicates that the implementation
+ supports the "fileinto" command.
+
+ comparator- The string "comparator-elbonia" is provided if the
+ implementation supports the "elbonia" comparator.
+ Therefore, all implementations have at least the
+ "comparator-i;octet"
+ and "comparator-i;ascii-casemap" capabilities. However,
+ these comparators may be used without being declared
+ with require.
+
+6.2. IANA Considerations
+
+ In order to provide a standard set of extensions, a registry is
+ maintained by IANA. Capability names may be registered on a first-
+ come, first-served basis. Extensions designed for interoperable use
+ SHOULD be defined as standards track or IESG approved experimental
+ RFCs. Registration of capability prefixes that do not begin with
+ "vnd." REQUIRES a standards track or IESG approved experimental RFC.
+
+6.2.1. Template for Capability Registrations
+
+ The following template is to be used for registering new Sieve
+ extensions with IANA.
+
+ To: iana@iana.org
+ Subject: Registration of new Sieve extension
+
+ Capability name: [the string for use in the 'require' statement]
+ Description: [a brief description of what the extension adds
+ or changes]
+ RFC number: [for extensions published as RFCs]
+ Contact address: [email and/or physical address to contact for
+ additional information]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 30]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+6.2.2. Handling of Existing Capability Registrations
+
+ In order to bring the existing capability registrations in line with
+ the new template, IANA is asked to modify each as follows:
+
+ 1. The "capability name" and "capability arguments" fields
+ should be eliminated
+ 2. The "capability keyword" field should be renamed to "Capability
+ name"
+ 3. An empty "Description" field should be added
+ 4. The "Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number" field
+ should be renamed to "RFC number"
+ 5. The "Person and email address to contact for further information"
+ field should be renamed to "Contact address"
+
+6.2.3. Initial Capability Registrations
+
+ This RFC updates the the following entries in the IANA registry for
+ Sieve extensions.
+
+ Capability name: encoded-character
+ Description: changes the interpretation of strings to allow
+ arbitrary octets and Unicode characters to be
+ represented using US-ASCII
+ RFC number: this RFC (Sieve base spec)
+ Contact address: The Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>
+
+ Capability name: fileinto
+ Description: adds the 'fileinto' action for delivering to a
+ mailbox other than the default
+ RFC number: this RFC (Sieve base spec)
+ Contact address: The Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>
+
+ Capability name: envelope
+ Description: adds the 'envelope' test for testing the message
+ transport sender and recipient address
+ RFC number: this RFC (Sieve base spec)
+ Contact address: The Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>
+
+ Capability name: comparator-* (anything starting with "comparator-")
+ Description: adds the indicated comparator for use with the
+ :comparator argument
+ RFC number: this RFC (Sieve base spec) and [COLLATION]
+ Contact address: The Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 31]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+6.3. Capability Transport
+
+ A method of advertising which capabilities an implementation supports
+ is difficult due to the wide range of possible implementations. Such
+ a mechanism, however, should have the property that the
+ implementation can advertise the complete set of extensions that it
+ supports.
+
+7. Transmission
+
+ The [MIME] type for a Sieve script is "application/sieve".
+
+ The registration of this type for RFC 2048 requirements is updated as
+ follows:
+
+ Subject: Registration of MIME media type application/sieve
+
+ MIME media type name: application
+ MIME subtype name: sieve
+ Required parameters: none
+ Optional parameters: none
+ Encoding considerations: Most sieve scripts will be textual,
+ written in UTF-8. When non-7bit characters are used,
+ quoted-printable is appropriate for transport systems
+ that require 7bit encoding.
+
+ Security considerations: Discussed in section 10 of this RFC.
+ Interoperability considerations: Discussed in section 2.10.5
+ of this RFC.
+ Published specification: this RFC.
+ Applications which use this media type: sieve-enabled mail
+ servers and clients
+ Additional information:
+ Magic number(s):
+ File extension(s): .siv .sieve
+ Macintosh File Type Code(s):
+ Person & email address to contact for further information:
+ See the discussion list at ietf-mta-filters@imc.org.
+ Intended usage:
+ COMMON
+ Author/Change controller:
+ See Editor information in this RFC.
+
+8. Parsing
+
+ The Sieve grammar is separated into tokens and a separate grammar as
+ most programming languages are.
+
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 32]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+8.1. Lexical Tokens
+
+ Sieve scripts are encoded in UTF-8. The following assumes a valid
+ UTF-8 encoding; special characters in Sieve scripts are all US-ASCII.
+
+ The following are tokens in Sieve:
+
+ - identifiers
+ - tags
+ - numbers
+ - quoted strings
+ - multi-line strings
+ - other separators
+
+ Identifiers, tags, and numbers are case-insensitive, while quoted
+ strings and multi-line strings are case-sensitive.
+
+ Blanks, horizontal tabs, CRLFs, and comments ("white space") are
+ ignored except as they separate tokens. Some white space is required
+ to separate otherwise adjacent tokens and in specific places in the
+ multi-line strings. CR and LF can only appear in CRLF pairs.
+
+ The other separators are single individual characters, and are
+ mentioned explicitly in the grammar.
+
+ The lexical structure of sieve is defined in the following grammar
+ (as described in [ABNF]):
+
+ bracket-comment = "/*" *not-star 1*STAR
+ *(not-star-slash *not-star 1*STAR) "/"
+ ; No */ allowed inside a comment.
+ ; (No * is allowed unless it is the last
+ ; character, or unless it is followed by a
+ ; character that isn't a slash.)
+
+ comment = bracket-comment / hash-comment
+
+ hash-comment = "#" *octet-not-crlf CRLF
+
+ identifier = (ALPHA / "_") *(ALPHA / DIGIT / "_")
+
+ multi-line = "text:" *(SP / HTAB) (hash-comment / CRLF)
+ *(multiline-literal / multiline-dotstart)
+ "." CRLF
+
+ multiline-literal = [ octet-not-period *octet-not-crlf ] CRLF
+
+ multiline-dotstart = "." 1*octet-not-crlf CRLF
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 33]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ ; A line containing only "." ends the
+ ; multi-line. Remove a leading '.' if
+ ; followed by another '.'.
+
+ not-star = CRLF / %x01-09 / %x0B-0C / %x0E-29 / %x2B-FF
+ ; either a CRLF pair, OR a single octet
+ ; other than NUL, CR, LF, or star
+
+ not-star-slash = CRLF / %x01-09 / %x0B-0C / %x0E-29 / %x2B-2E /
+ %x30-FF
+ ; either a CRLF pair, OR a single octet
+ ; other than NUL, CR, LF, star, or slash
+
+ number = 1*DIGIT [ QUANTIFIER ]
+
+ octet-not-crlf = %x01-09 / %x0B-0C / %x0E-FF
+ ; a single octet other than NUL, CR, or LF
+
+ octet-not-period = %x01-09 / %x0B-0C / %x0E-2D / %x2F-FF
+ ; a single octet other than NUL,
+ ; CR, LF, or period
+
+ octet-not-qspecial = %x01-09 / %x0B-0C / %x0E-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-FF
+ ; a single octet other than NUL,
+ ; CR, LF, double-quote, or backslash
+
+ QUANTIFIER = "K" / "M" / "G"
+
+ quoted-other = "\" octet-not-qspecial
+ ; represents just the octet-no-qspecial
+ ; character. SHOULD NOT be used
+
+ quoted-safe = CRLF / octet-not-qspecial
+ ; either a CRLF pair, OR a single octet other
+ ; than NUL, CR, LF, double-quote, or backslash
+
+ quoted-special = "\" (DQUOTE / "\")
+ ; represents just a double-quote or backslash
+
+ quoted-string = DQUOTE quoted-text DQUOTE
+
+ quoted-text = *(quoted-safe / quoted-special / quoted-other)
+
+ STAR = "*"
+
+ tag = ":" identifier
+
+ white-space = 1*(SP / CRLF / HTAB) / comment
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 34]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+8.2. Grammar
+
+ The following is the grammar of Sieve after it has been lexically
+ interpreted. No white space or comments appear below. The start
+ symbol is "start". Non-terminals for MATCH-TYPE, COMPARATOR, and
+ ADDRESS-PART are provided for use by extensions.
+
+ ADDRESS-PART = ":localpart" / ":domain" / ":all"
+
+ argument = string-list / number / tag
+
+ arguments = *argument [ test / test-list ]
+
+ block = "{" commands "}"
+
+ command = identifier arguments (";" / block)
+
+ commands = *command
+
+ COMPARATOR = ":comparator" string
+
+ MATCH-TYPE = ":is" / ":contains" / ":matches"
+
+ start = commands
+
+ string = quoted-string / multi-line
+
+ string-list = "[" string *("," string) "]" / string
+ ; if there is only a single string, the brackets
+ ; are optional
+
+ test = identifier arguments
+
+ test-list = "(" test *("," test) ")"
+
+9. Extended Example
+
+ The following is an extended example of a Sieve script. Note that it
+ does not make use of the implicit keep.
+
+ #
+ # Example Sieve Filter
+ # Declare any optional features or extension used by the script
+ #
+ require ["fileinto"];
+
+ #
+ # Handle messages from known mailing lists
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 35]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ # Move messages from IETF filter discussion list to filter mailbox
+ #
+ if header :is "Sender" "owner-ietf-mta-filters@imc.org"
+ {
+ fileinto "filter"; # move to "filter" mailbox
+ }
+ #
+ # Keep all messages to or from people in my company
+ #
+ elsif address :DOMAIN :is ["From", "To"] "example.com"
+ {
+ keep; # keep in "In" mailbox
+ }
+
+ #
+ # Try and catch unsolicited email. If a message is not to me,
+ # or it contains a subject known to be spam, file it away.
+ #
+ elsif anyof (NOT address :all :contains
+ ["To", "Cc", "Bcc"] "me@example.com",
+ header :matches "subject"
+ ["*make*money*fast*", "*university*dipl*mas*"])
+ {
+ fileinto "spam"; # move to "spam" mailbox
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ # Move all other (non-company) mail to "personal"
+ # mailbox.
+ fileinto "personal";
+ }
+
+10. Security Considerations
+
+ Users must get their mail. It is imperative that whatever method
+ implementations use to store the user-defined filtering scripts be
+ secure.
+
+ Several commands, such as "discard", "redirect", and "fileinto" allow
+ for actions to be taken that are potentially very dangerous.
+
+ Use of the "redirect" command to generate notifications may easily
+ overwhelm the target address, especially if it was not designed to
+ handle large messages.
+
+ Allowing a single script to redirect to multiple destinations can be
+ used as a means of amplifying the number of messages in an attack.
+ Moreover, if loop detection is not properly implemented it may be
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 36]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ possible to set up exponentially growing message loops. According,
+ Sieve implementations:
+
+ (1) MUST implement facilities to detect and break message loops. See
+ section 6.2 of [SMTP] for additional information on basic loop
+ detection strategies.
+
+ (2) MUST provide the means for administrators to limit the ability of
+ users to abuse redirect. In particular, it MUST be possible to
+ limit the number of redirects a script can perform. Additionally,
+ if no use cases exist for using redirect to multiple
+ destinations, this limit SHOULD be set to 1. Additional limits,
+ such as the ability to restrict redirect to local users MAY also
+ be implemented.
+
+ (3) MUST provide facilities to log use of redirect in order to
+ facilitate tracking down abuse.
+
+ (4) MAY use script analysis to determine whether or not a given
+ script can be executed safely. While the Sieve language is
+ sufficiently complex that full analysis of all possible scripts
+ is computationally infeasible, the majority of real-world
+ scripts are amenable to analysis. For example, an
+ implementation might allow scripts that it has determined are
+ safe to run unhindered, block scripts that are potentially
+ problematic, and subject unclassifiable scripts to additional
+ auditing and logging.
+
+
+ Allowing redirects at all may not be appropriate in situations where
+ email accounts are freely-available and/or not trackable to a human
+ who can be held accountable for creating message bombs or other
+ abuse.
+
+ As with any filter on a message stream, if the sieve implementation
+ and the mail agents 'behind' sieve in the message stream differ in
+ their interpretation of the messages, it may be possible for an
+ attacker to subvert the filter. Of particular note are differences
+ in the interpretation of malformed messages (e.g., missing or extra
+ syntax characters) or those that exhibit corner cases (e.g., NUL
+ octets encoded via [MIME3]).
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 37]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+11. Acknowledgments
+
+ This document has been revised in part based on comments and
+ discussions that took place on and off the SIEVE mailing list.
+ Thanks to Sharon Chisholm, Cyrus Daboo, Ned Freed, Arnt Gulbrandsen,
+ Michael Haardt, Kjetil Torgrim Homme, Barry Leiba, Mark E. Mallett,
+ Alexey Melnikov, Eric Rescorla, Rob Siemborski, and Nigel Swinson for
+ reviews and suggestions.
+
+12. Editors' Addresses
+
+ Philip Guenther
+ Sendmail, Inc.
+ 6425 Christie St. Ste 400
+ Emeryville, CA 94608
+ Email: guenther@sendmail.com
+
+
+ Tim Showalter
+ Email: tjs@psaux.com
+
+
+13. Normative References
+
+ [ABNF] D. Crocker, Ed., P. Overell "Augmented BNF for Syntax
+ Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.
+
+ [COLLATION] Newman, C., Duerst, M., and A. Gulbrandsen, "Internet
+ Application Protocol Collation Registry", RFC 4790, March
+ 2007.
+
+ [IMAIL] P. Resnick, Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822,
+ April 2001.
+
+ [KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+ [MIME] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+ Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+ Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+ [MIME3] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)
+ Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII
+ Text", RFC 2047, November 1996.
+
+ [SMTP] J. Klensin, Ed., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC
+ 2821, April 2001.
+
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 38]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ [UTF-8] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+ 10646", RFC 3629, November 2003.
+
+14. Informative References
+
+ [BINARY-SI] "Standard IEC 60027-2: Letter symbols to be used in
+ electrical technology - Part 2: Telecommunications and
+ electronics", January 1999.
+
+ [DSN] Moore, K. and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format
+ for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 3464, January
+ 2003.
+
+ [FLAMES] Borenstein, N, and C. Thyberg, "Power, Ease of Use, and
+ Cooperative Work in a Practical Multimedia Message
+ System", Int. J. of Man-Machine Studies, April, 1991.
+ Reprinted in Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and
+ Groupware, Saul Greenberg, editor, Harcourt Brace
+ Jovanovich, 1991. Reprinted in Readings in Groupware and
+ Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Ronald Baecker,
+ editor, Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.
+
+ [IMAP] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - version
+ 4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
+
+ [MDN] T. Hansen, Ed., G. Vaudreuil, Ed., "Message Disposition
+ Notification", RFC 3798, May 2004.
+
+ [RFC3028] Showalter, T., "Sieve: A Mail Filtering Language", RFC
+ 3028, January 2001.
+
+15. Changes from RFC 3028
+
+ This following list is a summary of the changes that have been made
+ in the Sieve language base specification from [RFC3028].
+
+ 1. Removed ban on tests having side-effects
+ 2. Removed reject extension (will be specified in a separate RFC)
+ 3. Clarified description of comparators to match [COLLATION], the
+ new base specification for them
+ 4. Require stripping of leading and trailing whitespace in
+ "header" test
+ 5. Clarified or tightened handling of many minor items, including:
+ - invalid [MIME3] encoding
+ - invalid addresses in headers
+ - invalid header field names in tests
+ - 'undefined' comparator result
+ - unknown envelope parts
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 39]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ - null return-path in "envelope" test
+ 6. Capability strings are case-sensitive
+ 7. Clarified that fileinto should reencode non-ASCII mailbox
+ names to match the mailstore's conventions
+ 8. Errors in the ABNF were corrected
+ 9. The references were updated and split into normative and
+ informative
+ 10. Added encoded-character capability and deprecated (but did not
+ remove) use of arbitrary binary octets in Sieve scripts.
+ 11. Updated IANA registration template, and added IANA
+ considerations to permit capability prefix registrations.
+ 12. Added .sieve as a valid extension for sieve scripts.
+
+16. Full Copyright Statement
+
+ Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
+
+ This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
+ contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
+ retain all their rights.
+
+ This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
+ "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
+ OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
+ THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
+ OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
+ THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
+ WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Intellectual Property
+
+ The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
+ Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
+ pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
+ this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
+ might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
+ made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
+ on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
+ found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
+
+ Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
+ assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
+ attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
+ such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
+ specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
+ http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
+
+ The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 40]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
+ rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
+ this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
+ ipr@ietf.org.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+ Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the IETF
+ Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 41]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+Appendix A. Change History
+
+ This section will be removed when this document leaves the Internet-
+ Draft stage.
+
+ Changes from draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-12.txt
+ 1. Merged in changes from original RFC Editor note
+ 2. Added additional security considerations for redirect
+
+ Changes from draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-11.txt
+ 1. Correct typo in boilerplate
+ 2. Update [DSN] reference to RFC 3464
+
+ Changes from draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-10.txt
+ 1. Clarify how the "redirect" action uses the address argument
+ 2. Eliminate the phrase "original message"
+ 3. If an outbound address doesn't match the syntax, it's an error
+
+ Changes from draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-09.txt
+ 1. [MDN] reference is merely informative
+ 2. Whitespace tweaks in the ABNF
+ 3. Extensions can't change "require"
+ 4. fileinto a nonexistent mailbox is implementation defined behavior
+ 5. Clarify the definition of the size of a message
+ 6. Make the KEYWORDS boilerplate match expectations
+ 7. Add the encoded-character extension
+ 8. Remove duplication in text regarding unknown extensions
+ 9. Address security concerns about looping with redirect or other
+ extensions
+ 10. Valid numbers include zero
+ 11. Various changes suggested by the gen-art reviewer
+ 12. Removed references to the Halting Problem. Humor is dead
+ 13. Clarify which tokens are case-insensitive and which are
+ case-sensitive; use the 'unexpected' case in several examples
+ 14. Add .sieve as an extension for the application/sieve MIME type
+ 15. Permit registration of capability prefixes (like "comparator-"),
+ but require an IESG approved RFC when they're outside the
+ "vnd." 'namespace'
+ 16. Replace "example.edu" with "example.com"
+ 17. Update boilerplate
+ 18. Updated pages numbers in table of contents
+
+ Changes from draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-08.txt
+ 1. [RFC3028] reference is merely informative
+ 2. String lists are literal data
+ 3. Tagged and optional arguments can take any sort of literal data
+ as arguments
+ 4. Change "folder" to "mailbox" throughout
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 42]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ 5. Added more items to the "Changes from RFC 3028" list
+ 6. A multi-line string includes the CRLF before the final dot
+
+ Changes from draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-07.txt
+ 1. Improve description in the extension registrations
+ 2. Give IANA directions on how to massage existing registrations
+ into the new form
+ 3. Added "Changes from RFC 3028" section
+ 4. Updated pages numbers in table of contents
+ 5. Permit non-UTF-8 octet sequences in comments
+ 6. It's an error to use conflicting or repeated tagged and optional
+ arguments
+ 7. Update description of script encoding
+
+ Changes from draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-06.txt
+ 1. Tweak wording of how :matches uses character definition
+ of comparator
+ 2. Add security consideration regarding "redirect" as a notification
+ method
+ 3. fileinto SHOULD reencode; mention IMAP's mUTF-7
+ 4. en;ascii-casemap is gone; switch back to i;ascii-casemap
+ 5. Permit non-UTF-8 octet sequences in strings
+ 6. Sort grammar non-terminals
+ 7. Syntactically invalid addresses don't match :localpart or :domain
+ 8. The null return-path has empty address parts
+ 9. Treat comparator result of "undefined" the same as "no-match"
+ 10. Envelope sender on redirects is implementation defined
+ 11. Change IANA registration template
+
+ Changes from draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-05.txt
+ 1. The specifics of what names are acceptable for fileinto and
+ the handling of invalid names are both implementation-defined
+ 2. Update to draft-newman-i18n-comparator-07.txt
+ 3. Adjust the example in 5.7 again
+
+ Changes from draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-04.txt
+ 1. Change "Syntax:" to "Usage:"
+ 2. Update ABNF reference to RFC 4234
+ 3. Add non-terminals for MATCH-TYPE, COMPARATOR, and ADDRESS-PART
+ 4. Strip leading and trailing whitespace in the value being matched
+ by header
+ 5. Collations operate on octets, not characters, and for character
+ data that is the UTF-8 encoding of the Unicode characters
+ 6. :matches uses character definition of comparator
+
+ Changes from draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-03.txt
+ 1. Remove section 2.4.2.4., MIME Parts, as unreferenced
+ 2. Update to draft-newman-i18n-comparator-04.txt
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 43]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ 3. Various tweaks to examples and syntax lines
+ 4. Define "control structure" as a control command with a block
+ argument, then use it consistently. Reword description of
+ blocks to match
+ 5. Clarify that "header" can never match an absent header and give
+ the preferred way to test for absent or empty
+ 6. Invalid header name syntax is not an error _in tests_ (but could
+ be elsewhere)
+ 7. Implementation SHOULD consider unknown envelope parts an error
+ 8. Remove explicit "omitted" option from 2.7.2p2
+
+ Changes from draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-02.txt
+ 1. Change "ASCII" to "US-ASCII" throughout
+ 2. Tweak section 2.7.2 to not require use of UTF-8 internally and
+ to explicitly leave implementation-defined the handling of text
+ that can't be converted to Unicode
+ 3. Add reference to RFC 2047
+ 4. Clarify that capability strings are case-sensitive
+ 5. Clarify that address, envelope, and header return false if no
+ combination of arguments match
+ 6. Directly state that code that isn't reached may still be checked
+ for errors
+ 7. Invalid header name syntax is not an error
+ 8. Remove description of header unfolding that conflicts with
+ [IMAIL]
+ 9. Warn that filters may be subvertable if agents interpret messages
+ differently
+ 10. Encoded NUL octets SHOULD NOT cause truncation
+
+ Changes from draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-01.txt
+ 1. Remove ban on side effects
+ 2. Remove definition of the 'reject' action, as it is being moved
+ to the doc that also defines the 'refuse' action
+ 3. Update capability registrations to reference the mailing list
+ 4. Add Tim back as an editor
+ 5. Refer to the zero-length string ("") as "empty" instead of
+ "null"
+
+ Changes from draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-00.txt
+ 1. More grammar corrections:
+ - permit /***/,
+ - remove ambiguity in finding end of bracket comment,
+ - require valid UTF-8,
+ - express quoting in the grammar
+ - ban bare CR and LF in all locations
+ 2. Correct a bunch of whitespace and linewrapping nits
+ 3. Update IMAIL and SMTP references to RFC 2822 and RFC 2821
+ 4. Require support for en;ascii-casemap comparator as well as the
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 44]
+
+Internet-Draft Sieve: An Email Filtering Language February 2007
+
+
+ old i;ascii-casemap. As with the old one, you do not need to
+ use 'require' to use the new comparator
+ 5. Update IANA considerations to update the existing registrations
+ to point at this doc instead of 3028
+ 6. Scripts SHOULD NOT contain superfluous backslashes
+ 7. Update Acknowledgments
+
+ Changes from RFC 3028
+ 1. Split references into normative and informative
+ 2. Update references to current versions of DSN, IMAP, MDN, and
+ UTF-8 RFCs
+ 3. Replace "e-mail" with "email"
+ 4. Incorporate RFC 3028 errata
+ 5. The "reject" action cancels the implicit keep
+ 6. Replace references to ACAP with references to the i18n-comparator
+ draft. Further work is needed to completely sync with that
+ draft
+ 7. Start to update grammar to only permit legal UTF-8 (incomplete)
+ and correct various other errors and typos
+ 8. Update IPR broilerplate to RFC 3978/3979
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Guenther & Showalter Standards Track [Page 45]
+
diff --git a/sieve/tests/encoded-character.sieve b/sieve/tests/encoded-character.sieve
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..6b629b3a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/sieve/tests/encoded-character.sieve
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+require "encoded-character";
diff --git a/src/lib-sieve/ext-encoded-character.c b/src/lib-sieve/ext-encoded-character.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..69f944b02
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/lib-sieve/ext-encoded-character.c
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+/* Extension encoded-character
+ * ---------------------------
+ *
+ * Authors: Stephan Bosch
+ * Specification: draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-13.txt
+ * Implementation: skeleton
+ * Status: under development
+ *
+ */
+
+#include "lib.h"
+
+#include "sieve-extensions.h"
+#include "sieve-validator.h"
+
+/* Forward declarations */
+
+static bool ext_encoded_character_load(int ext_id);
+static bool ext_encoded_character_validator_load(struct sieve_validator *validator);
+
+/* Extension definitions */
+
+static int ext_my_id;
+
+struct sieve_extension encoded_character_extension = {
+ "encoded-character",
+ ext_encoded_character_load,
+ ext_encoded_character_validator_load,
+ NULL, NULL, NULL,
+ SIEVE_EXT_DEFINE_NO_OPCODES,
+ NULL
+};
+
+static bool ext_encoded_character_load(int ext_id)
+{
+ ext_my_id = ext_id;
+ return TRUE;
+}
+
+/* Load extension into validator */
+
+static bool ext_encoded_character_validator_load
+ (struct sieve_validator *validator ATTR_UNUSED)
+{
+ return TRUE;
+}
--
GitLab