On 4/21/2013 3:55 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 21.04.2013 15:38, schrieb Stephan Bosch:
/Return-path: <sender@example.com> *Envelope-to: test@example.com* if header :matches ["Envelope-to"] ["test@example.com"] {} would make more sense Although the above will work, it does not mean that the approach Iliusha has chosen is wrong. Be sure you know the Sieve specification before you comment:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5228#section-5.4 i comment not based on how things SHOULD be in theory i GENERALLY comment with working examples how they ARE from the real world
I don't have a problem with that. I'm just saying that it DOES make (more) sense to use the envelope extension the way he is doing. :)
Did you encounter any problems with the envelope extension in your own experience?
Also, why do you use ':matches' in your example? :) because the "contains" from the OP has the same intention?
because it is from a well working sieve-script for subject-matching with some hundret entries to protect postmaster-address from most spam while go with the RFC that postmaster must not be spam-filtered at the MX
if header :matches ["Subject"] ["*please your woman*","*see sexy*"]{discard;}
goes well with the RFC as example and leaves me in peace at the same time :-)
Well, using ':matches" for one key value without wildcards is a bit useless. In that case it is equivalent to ':is' or leaving the match type out. But yes, I agree, if it is part of a large list of match keys (only some of which have no wild cards), it does make sense.
Regards,
Stephan.