Re: comments on refuse

Matthew Elvey wrote:

> > > or if the sieve implementation
> > > is behind any MTAs that don't synchronously pass-through messages.  
> A careful reading of the draft will show that such implementations 
> cannot support the refuse extension.
Uh, no. This is not what the current text says and I don't think we 
should prohibit deployment of refuse for such configurations.
> Please reread the draft and let me know if this is not clear. (Section 
> 3, first paragraph)