[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Discard vs. DSN

1999-03-23 14:02:40
At 12:31 PM 3/23/99 -0800, Ned Freed wrote:
Exactly right. In my experience being able to ignore messages is one of most
commonly requested features, if not *the* most requested feature, for filters
to be able to do. 

This is why I'm strongly opposed to making it optional.

I agree that discard MUST NOT generate a NDN.  The needed functionality
is an automated way to press the delete button.  There was no failure
to delivery, only the user's decision to delete it, automated via
a sieve script.

The problem arises if an implementation cannot implement discard
without generating a NDN.  Do we say:

        - The implemenation is not sieve compatible?
        - Or give some wiggle room and say discard is optional?
        - Or say discard SHOULD NOT generate NDN?

My preference would be stronger than SHOULD NOT but not quite
MUST NOT.  I guess that means stating the discard SHOULD NOT
generate a NDN.  Perhaps, with text stressing that the usefulness
of discard is greatly disminished by implementations that generate
a NDNs.  The developer should try very hard to implement discard

I think there is still value in a sieve implementation that
cannot implement discard without a NDN, but users of the
implementation would just have to live with its limitations.


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