Re: New Sieve extension "refuse" proposal - draft-elvey-refuse-sieve-01h
2004-02-18 08:55:56
Tim Showalter wrote:
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
I don't remember now why the Seive RFC was written to use MDNs.
I do. Reject originally (early spec, long time ago) said generate a
DSN, but MUAs can't do that--conceptually, anyway. An MUA can
generate a good forgery, but it was inappropriate for it to do so.
The guarantee advertised by a DSN is supposed to be "this is what
happened". The guarantee advertised by an MDN is "this is what
happened, except that maybe then something else happened that negated
this event". My memory of the spec is that it doesn't exactly allow
outright lying, but you're allowed to state "deleted" and there is no
guarantee that the message wasn't immediately undeleted, for instance.
So I guess the short version is that MDNs were chosen because we could
get away with so much more.
Than my question is: is changing "reject" to generate DSNs in MTAs and
MDN in MUAs acceptable?
I personally have no problems with this, and I suspect most users will
not probably care either.
Alexey
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: New Sieve extension "refuse" proposal - draft-elvey-refuse-sieve-01h, (continued)
Message not available
|
|
|