ietf-mta-filters
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: AD Evaluation Comments: draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-04

2005-10-21 17:10:27

On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 03:15:32PM -0700, Ned Freed wrote:
Hmm, going back again... perhaps you were reading my "non-first
vacation" as "non-vacation" ?

Yes.

OK.  That explains the disconnect, and renders a lot of this
mini-thread irrelevant.

If you thought I was suggesting that the first non-vacation action
after multiple vacation actions should cause an error, well, you
were very generous in your responses :-)


There is certainly precedent for suppressing duplicate vacation
actions.

I disagree. AFAIK we have no other situation where repeating an action is
supposed to be an error but repeating an identical action doesn't produce an
error. The obvious case where repeating an action is an error is reject, and
it's an error even if the second reject is identical.

The base spec says (at least the way I read it, and thus the
way I implemented it) that multiple attempts to file into a folder will
be silently suppressed.

The cases are not really comparable. Multiple fileintos are not an automatic
error. The only time multiple fileintos would produce an error is when they
exceed the implementation's limit on fileintos, and the spec is silent (as it
should be) on whether or not such a limit counts identical fileinto separately
or not.

I understand that difference, and your perspective on it.  Me, I
find de-duplication of identical vacations (and even rejects) to
offer the most consistency and utility.  But I'll implement whatever
the RFC ends up saying in this regard.



I completely agree with that.  What I don't understand is how it applies
to this particular point.  (OTOH, unrelated to vacation, it could apply
in an implementation that defers actions.)

See above. I don't know what else I can say.

It was explained by the fundamental miscommunication anyway.

Yours,
-mm-