[exim] Enhancing Seive definitions in the Exim environment

Michael Haardt wrote:

>>>I suggest that there be router settings that override the default
>>>behavior of Sieve in Exim. In my case I d want to perhaps deliver it to
>>>the Inbox - but I have serveral routers beyond that router that will do
>>>that. But it has to use those routers to determine what to do with it.
>>>
>>>
>>I strongly agree with this. The way that Sieve filters are currently
>>integrated into Exim makes the whole "inbox" thing very awkward to
>>deal with.
>>
>>
>
>What do you want to change specifically?
>
>o implicit keep
>
>
Yes - router setting like: keep_means_skip_router = true

>o explicit keep
>
>
Maybe the same - I don't know

>o fileinto "inbox"
>
>
If fileinto is followed by the name of a router or transport then it
branches to that router or transport. If followed by the name of a file
then it delivers to the file. Think beyond the concept of files as
destinations. To the the destination is anything that can take a message.

Being able to fork to routers or transports by name would be very
powerful. And in my mind fileinto is followed by the destination and I
consider a router or transport as a destination for email.

fileinto "remote_smtp"

>o combinations of the above? (note the ':copy" extension)
>
>
Anyting that would

>I have a hard time imagining where it might make sense to handle
>deliveries to "inbox" differently than deliveries to a folder of
>it, but I may not be very imaginative today.
>
>
>
>
Instead of just delivering to a folder - be able to deliver it to a
router by name. That way the router or transport can do the complex
delivery. Think beyond files and folders and think about delivering to
anything that can take a message that has a name.

To me as implemented in Exim - sieve is useless because it has to be the
final delivery agent. I would never in my configuration use sieve to
actually deliver email into inboxes or folders. I would use it as a
smart filter to bounce spams - eat junk messages - redirect mail to
other addresses - and deliver messages to routers.

For me the most important change I want is to have an option for the
implicit keep and perhaps all keeps to mean - pass it on to the next
router. I think that in itself would be a giant step forward.

In my mind this doesn't break and syntax or any rules. It's just a
logical expansion of the concepts to take into account a more powerful
environment.