Matthew Elvey (FM) wrote:
I like Cyrus' idea of the refuse extension simply changing the semantics
of "reject" for several reasons.
It's the best way to make mass search-and-replace unnecessary when
switching from an MTA that can support "refuse" to an MUA that can't.
It makes it easier for folks to switch to using "refuse".
We are basically in agreement.
The only thing that concerns me is that currently "refuse" might
generate a DSN, while "reject" is required to generate an MDN.
Does it matter that the behavior changes when a Sieve script is moved
between MTA and MUA or vice versa?
I don't remember now why the Seive RFC was written to use MDNs.
I can't think of a situation where you would want both reject and refuse
available at the same time.
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
__________________________________________