Matthew Wall <wall(_at_)cyrusoft(_dot_)com> writes:
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.
But what about the case where the Filter Agent (FA) is ACAP-aware, and
exports an ACAP 'filter' dataset profile? It certainly seems possible to
define the filter dataset so that the server can perform language-level
validation; this is little different from profile-specific validations
performed by other ACAP dataset extensions.
Now, this *is* different from the case where the FA is an ACAP client,
in which case the store probably should be "value-neutral". Such an
implementation would be forced to complain about script validation problems
at mail-delivery time.
Stan