ietf-mta-filters
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: implementation issues

2005-04-02 11:48:45

On 3/31/05 12:16 AM, Sorin Suciu sent forth electrons to convey:


so, if i understand this correctly we have the following receipe for a perfect implementation:
- reject can only be by itself and only once (eventualy with stop)

I disagree. From http://www.elvey.com/it/sieve/draft-elvey-refuse-sieve-02.txt:

4.2  "refuse" compatibility with other actions
"Refuse" cancels the implicit keep, and is incompatible with
  "reject" and "discard". "Refuse" is also incompatible with
  "vacation" extension [VACATION]. (It should be compatible and
  incompatible with the same actions as "reject", but [SIEVE] states
  "Implementations SHOULD prohibit reject when used with other
  actions." However we feel that "refuse" should be permitted when
  used with other actions such as "fileinto" and "redirect".  This
  could be useful for analyzing, tracking or reporting spam.  Also,
  users can use tricks (such as multiple redirects back to their own
  email addresses) to get around such a prohibition anyway.)

IIRC, there was support for such behavior.
(I wonder if the interactions of SIEVE actions would be most clearly and concisely described with if-then-else pseudocode (and a definition of when that code runs))


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: implementation issues, Matthew Elvey <=