On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 14:08 -0400, Mark E. Mallett wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:41:05PM -0700, Matthew Elvey wrote:
How's this replacement?
(The first sentence is unchanged.)
The "refuse" action refuses delivery of a message by sending back
the 550 SMTP response code to an SMTP client. This extension can be
supported only by a Sieve implementation capable of sending the 550 over
an SMTP connection between Administrative Units.
Well, I'm probably being anal (again). To me, the use of "between
Administrative Units" and "over the open Internet" are birds of a
feather.
the current draft doesn't say "over the open Internet", so I don't see
how this is relevant?
"Administrative Units" would have to be defined, though.
I don't think it's important to specify where the message is
transported, or between whom-- only that the message is turned away by
the receiver during transport, thus avoiding a later asynchronous
notification via a separate email message. e.g. I think refusal should
apply to a transmission to the SMTP server running on localhost.
is an e-mail system which accepts all e-mail but sticks it in a
directory where it is subsequently picked up by a spam classifier, which
in turn resubmits the message via SMTP on localhost where the Sieve
script is run (*deep breath*) allowed to offer "refuse"? I'd say no,
since the 550 will not be able to reach the previous e-mail system.
an MTA which doesn't double as a MDA will have to use a callout to the
next hop in the system and wait for its response before passing the
answer back to the other e-mail system. (a system which does queueing
in some circumstances is fine, but queueing shouldn't be normal
behaviour.)
--
Kjetil T.