On 8/10/2004 8:13 AM, Cyrus Daboo sent forth electrons to convey:
Hi Matthew,
--On Monday, August 09, 2004 10:46 PM -0700 Matthew Elvey
<matthew(_at_)elvey(_dot_)com> wrote:
1) Belatedly announcing, in case folks missed it:
http://www1.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-elvey-refuse-sieve-02.txt
Last discussion post on 'refuse' was my post on 6/8/04.
I believe 'refuse' is ready for last call.
There was some discussion at the lunch BOF last week about the utility
of refuse.
Cool; wish I coulda been there/participated. Anyone take minutes?
(edit: I just heard that Alexey has notes he may share.)
There was general consensus among the participants that it would be
better to extend reject to allow for SMTP refusal and DSN generation
rather than add a new command. Personally I prefer that approach - but
the issue needs more discussion on the list.
We've probably been over this before, but can you explain in detail
why you think a new command is better than extending the behaviour of
reject?
So the idea is just a syntax change, yes?
What's the gist of the argument for the change?
I can't think of any strong arguments against the change; here are some
less strong arguments:
1)A normal extension (the current 'refuse') is a cleaner implementation
in the sense that it's a standard extension - something that's well
understood, instead of something that makes the base Sieve RFC 'wrong'
by changing it.
2)It's already written and debugged.
Arguments for the change:
1)A change won't break anything, according to the URL below.
Have we done something like this (e.g. modify an action to accept a
special parameter flag) before?
2) http://wiki.fastmail.fm/wiki/index.php/SieveExtensionsSupportMatrix
might make a good addition to http://cyrusoft.com/sieve/.
I am planning on several updates to our webpage and will add a link to
your page at the same time.
Great.