On 8/23/05 11:08 AM, Mark E. Mallett sent forth electrons to convey:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:41:05PM -0700, Matthew Elvey wrote:
On 8/21/05 7:54 AM, Alexey Melnikov sent forth electrons to convey:
right. the key is that you decline a message which is sent from a
different administrative domain. [...] a "refuse" MUST be able
to tell the other administrative domain that the message was rejected
without instantiating the sending of a new message.
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. 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.
mm
No, that doesn't address my concern from a previous email:
On 8/19/05 2:18 PM, Matthew Elvey sent forth electrons to convey:
...[If] a Sieve script running on Dest encounters a 'refuse', and
sends a 550 to Relay 2, if Relay 2 then generates a bounce, instead of
sending a 550 to MSA, then Dest MUST NOT be considered compliant with
'refuse'.
+------------+ +-----------+
| Originator | | Recipient |
+-----+------+ +-----------+
| ^
| Internet |
| ___^___ |
V / \ |
+---------+ +--------+ +---------+ +----+----+
| | | | | | | |
| Source +--->| MSA +------>| Relay2 +----> | Dest |
| | | | | | | |
+----+----+ +--------+ +---------+ +---------+
\_________Destination_AU__________/
That's why we need something like "between Administrative Units" of
"over the open Internet".