[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Sieve extensions

1998-01-18 15:59:32
--On Sun, Jan 18, 1998 11:43 -0800 "Ned Freed" 

Generally speaking the mail server has to assume that invalid scripts will
appear from time to time. Suppose the ACAP server doesn't validate
What then?

As such, good error handling has to be part of the server, and we need to
make sure we specify what that is.

OK, there's several approaches we could take here:

0 : relegate syntax checking to end agents, i.e. the generator, storing
agent, and/or interpreting agent, but not place specific requirements on
error conditions as part of the base specification.

1: specify a simple 'yes' or 'no' error be required by one or more agents;
any 'no' response is rejected without articulation for the generating agent
to figure out.

n: do full error/ response codes, which would (I think) require some
discussion of interpreter behavior. This is not completely out of scope, but
I think would require a great deal of attention and care. 

In general, I'd disagree with the notion that the storing or transporting
agent (e.g. ACAP) ought to be involved with validating the code. It seems to
me this is killing the messenger for delivering a BAD message, as it were.
Since generation and interpretation are the responsibility of SIEVE-aware
agents, the error-checking should be strictly handled at those points.
Otherwise you put some pretty severe implementation restrictions on a
storage mechanism that probably out to be (literally) value-neutral.

- mw

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>