[Top] [All Lists]

Re: draft-degener-sieve-editheader-01.txt; "refuse" action

2004-01-20 12:49:14

My belated two cents - just that; I don't feel strongly; no responses necessary.

Let's keep it simple. Wow, I'm not aware there's good precedent for MUAs appending instead of prepending. I thought they prepended, like good MTAs do. I'd like to see addheader put the added header at the top, where new headers are *supposed* to go (or so I thought), anyone have a compelling real case where :last is needed?

I'd like to see this go away:

   A message modified by addheader or deleteheader MUST NOT
   be considered the same as the original message unless it
   matches the original message exactly.

I'd like to see replaceheader reconsidered for the spec, or at least any objections to it made public; the standards-setting process must be public.

This does apply the KISS principle because it'll mean an otherwise imminent vendor-specific implementation will be unnecessary.
FYI: Progress is being made on the draft for the "refuse" action; Alexey and I should post a draft soon; we've worked through a bunch of issues already.