[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Spam blowback from Sieve implementations.

2006-11-29 10:17:19

Barry Leiba wrote:

* Consensus -- as I recall it -- was to use two actions:
1. Leave the current action alone, but add text that says that implementations MAY use protocol-level reject if and only if the response text is US-ASCII.


2. Add a new action that ONLY accepts US-ASCII response text, and that MUST use protocol-level reject.

Did we actually have consensus on disallowing UTF-8 for ereject and that it can't issue MDNs? The former seems too strict given that a future SMTP extension might allow non-US-ASCII text in responses. The latter prevents scripts from being portable.

I thought we were going to leave how best to do the reject/ereject up to the implementation (based on environment, etc), but weighted by the fact that by using ereject the user is placing a priority on protocol level refusal, and by using 'old' reject the user is placing a priority on sending the exact reason string.

Kenneth Murchison
Systems Programmer
Project Cyrus Developer/Maintainer
Carnegie Mellon University