Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 16:11:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Chris Newman <Chris(_dot_)Newman(_at_)innosoft(_dot_)com>
On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Tim Showalter wrote:
So the action limitations need to be spelled out in the draft, right?
Advice would be useful. I'm not sure they have to be requirements.
In the case where there's a conflict, what happens? Three possibilities:
* require implementations to reject any script they can't guarantee will
have problems (this is pretty hard)
* take the first/last action specified, and just get on with life
* run-time error, do a keep, then mail the user explaining what happened
I'd say do the actions in order and skip those actions which are illegal
by policy -- generating an email error report to the user for skipped
actions. That seems like the simplist way to do it.
What about the "obvious" cases, like allowing reject AND keep of the same
message? Should that be forbidden?
I'm okay with just making this policy, but having a logical order of
fallout would be useful. (Can't reject if keep, so ignore the reject.
Use the first specified action.)
--
Tim Showalter
tjs+(_at_)andrew(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu