On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 16:01 -0400, Mark E. Mallett wrote:
On the other hand if the LMTP tool is being called by an MTA that's
engaged in an SMTP dialog, and the LMTP's 5xx response results in a
synchronous 5xx SMTP response by the MTA, then the system that combines
the MTA and LMTP tool is refuse-compliant. However if then that MTA is
part of a larger email system that doesn't convey that result
synchronously, that larger system is no longer compliant with refuse.
Now: is the Sieve implementation correct, even though bounce messages
are generated? I say yes it is, because it is correctly conveying the
result of the "refuse" action. The spec should be about correct Sieve
implementations regardless of their place in the architecture.
I think you are right. Sieve compliance and overall system architecture
requirements are separate things. I think both should be addressed in
the spec, though.
the document could benefit from some editorial reorganisation. in
particular I don't think it flows well to have this TOC:
1. Introduction 4
2. Conventions Used in this Document 4
3. Discussion of finer points 4
4. SIEVE "reject" extension 5
5. SIEVE "refuse" extension 6
6. Security Considerations 8
in my opinion, section 3 should be renamed ("Server architecture
requirements", perhaps) and made a subsection of section 5.
(sorry for not bringing this up before.)
--
Kjetil T.