Michael Haardt <michael(_at_)freenet-ag(_dot_)de> writes:
the current draft already closed many items on my list. I may have
missed some changes, but this is currently unsolved:
...
Strings Containing Header Names
MIME-Encoded NUL Characters
Header Test With Invalid MIME Encoding In Header
String Arguments
Hmm, did you miss my reply on these points to your previous post?
Rather than repeat my comments...
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/msg06094.html
I think I was waiting for a response or more comments before making
changes. I should have added them to the open issues list while
waiting.
Sieve Syntax and Semantics
...
RFC 3028 does not define if semantic checks are strict (always treat
unknown extensions as errors) or lazy (treat unknown extensions as error,
if they are executed), and since it employs a very generic grammar,
it is not unreasonable for an implementation using a parser for the
generic grammar to indeed process scripts that contain unknown commands
in dead code. It is just required to treat disabled but known extensions
the same as unknown extensions.
My read of section 2.10.6 is that an implementation is only required to
detect errors in code that is actually executed, but that it is
permitted to also detect them code that is skipped ("if false { ... }")
or not reached ("stop; ..."). Script writers should disable code using
unsupported extensions by removing it completely or commenting it out,
as they cannot depend on implementations accepting such code when
wrapped in an "if false {...}" block.
What do other people think? Should wording similar to that be added to
2.10.6?
Philip Guenther