Re: New Sieve extension "refuse" proposal - draft-elvey-refuse-sieve-01h

Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

> Matthew Elvey (FM) writes:
>
> > http://www.elvey.com/it/sieve/draft-elvey-refuse-sieve-01h.txt
>
> I suggest adding a sentence saying that SMTP refusal may happen at the 
> RCPT TO or DATA stages, depending on what's convenient to the 
> implementation. (I suppose it might also happen at the MAIL FROM 
> stage, if a systemwide sieve does the refusal.)
> The 550 result code is a fine thing, but shouldn't you also specify an 
> extended result code (1893/2034)? 5.7.1, perhaps?
This is an open issue in the document ;-). Matthew and I weren't sure 
what to do with enhanced status codes.
Do you suggest that we mandate 5.7.1 or should we instead mention it and 
allow an MTA to select another enhanced status code if appropriate?
Alexey
__________________________________________
Isode Limited, http://www.isode.com

IETF standard related pages:
http://www.melnikov.ca/mel/devel/Links.html

Personal Home Page: http://www.melnikov.ca
__________________________________________