Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 03:45:10 +0300
From: Alexey Melnikov <mel(_at_)taxxi(_dot_)com>
Incidentially, I really think we should dump implicit keep. If this is
not the case, I'd really like to know it now.
What does that mean? Surely the default action must still be keep.
I agree. I still think it is quite clear when implicit keep will be
performed (no action or run-time failure).
The current draft doesn't say no action, it says no fileinto, keep, or
reject. I wish it said no action.
Actually, that's a bug in the draft that I missed: as written, an
implicit keep happens even if there's a discard.
The wording as specified will interact poorly with extensions, but it
may not be unworkable.
As I understand we are trying to solve few different problems:
1). How to treat multiple FileInto - additive or selective (first/last)?
my opinion: Additive, if server supports multiple FileInto. Otherwise file
into last.
This is inherently ambiguous, and a bad idea. If we have to allow
non-multiple fileinto, we should split it into yet another action.
(No, I don't like the idea.)
2). Can FileInto have multiple parameters? How treat them if the
answer is yes? my opinion: Yes. Treat FileInto with multiple
parameters as atomic operation [as Matthew proposed] (the alternative
is to treat it as multiple operations).
Atomic operations raise the implementation complexity very
significantly. I believe we have already punted on this.
--
Tim Showalter <tjs+(_at_)andrew(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu>