[Top] [All Lists]

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

2004-02-13 13:29:20

On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 10:59:01AM -0500, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
Hi Matthew,

--On Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:59 AM -0800 "Matthew Elvey (FM)" 
<matthew(_at_)elvey(_dot_)fastmail(_dot_)fm> wrote:

| Hello, folks.  Please review and provide feedback on the "refuse"
| extension, designed to mostly replace Sieve's "reject" command.

Question - is there any situation where you would want both reject and 
refuse available at the same time? i.e. couldn't we just get away with an 
extension that simply indicates that the existing reject command will 
actually run during the SMTP transaction and will generate an SMTP error 
instead of an MDN? Or, if modifying the base-spec reject behaviour is 
really not allowed in this way, how about having refuse do either SMTP 
error or MDN as appropriate for the system? That would mean that users can 
write one script using a single command and have it work on any SIEVE 
system, whether SIEVE runs at SMTP time or post-SMTP. I would hate to have 
to change reject<->refuse every time I moved or copied a script across 
different systems.

This was my initial reaction too: rather than introduce a new action,
introduce a new "smtp-time" operating mode where the existing "reject"
action would have the desired effect.  One might even add an option
to "reject" to specify the SMTP response code and the extended result code,
which could be used in the smtp-time mode and ignore otherwise.

As I mentioned in another thread, this notion of operating mode could
also be useful in other contexts.

Re the draft text: why is it "test refuse" and not "action refuse" ?


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