Randy, thank you for the comments! I am replying to the easy comments
first...
Randall Gellens wrote:
(3) Typo in Abstract and also Section 1: "updates definition" should
be "updates the definition".
Fixed.
(4) Suggested change in Section 1: change "sometimes preferable" to
"generally preferable".
Changed.
(5) Typos (grammatical errors) in Section 3.1:
Old:
How message is refused depends
on capabilities of mail component (MUA, MDA or MTA) executing the
Sieve script. The Sieve interpreter must do one of the following
actions, as detailed by the following priority table (items listed
earlier take precedence). Note that if action can not be taken or
fails, the interpreter should try the next item in the list:
New:
How a message is refused depends
on the capabilities of the mail component (MUA, MDA or MTA)
executing the
Sieve script. The Sieve interpreter must do one of the following
actions, as detailed by the following priority table (items listed
earlier take precedence). Note that if an action can not be taken or
fails, the interpreter should try the next item in the list:
Fixed.
(7) Typo in Section 3.1.1: "at SMTP/LMTP level" should be "at the
SMTP/LMTP level".
Fixed.
(8) My suggestion for the open issue in 3.1.1 would be to require
ASCII, since it is the most interoperable. A future extension can
permit UTF-8 after wider deployment of EAI extensions. That means
Sieve should enforce ASCII in the use of 'Reject'. Replacing UTF-8
with "?" is a kludge that is likely to confuse users and lead to
undesirable results. Making it a syntax error seems the way to go, as
users will be immediately notified, and clients that generate Sieve
scripts can guide users.
(9) Typo in Section 3.1.1: "delay immediate sending" should be "delay
immediately sending".
Fixed.
(10) Typo in Section 3.1.3: "When Sieve engine is running inside MUA"
should be "When the Sieve engine is running inside the MUA".
Fixed.
(11) Missing blank line in Section 3.1.3, before sentence starting
"MTAs and MDAs SHOULD NOT".
Added.
(12) Typo in Section 3.1.3: "reject at protocol level" should be
"reject at the protocol level".
Fixed.
(13) In Section 3.2, should there be any discussion of priority, for
example, if both vacation and reject are attempted, do the reject and
not the vacation?
reject and vacation are not allowed together, as per section 3.3.