ietf-mta-filters
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Spam blowback from Sieve implementations.

2006-11-29 10:52:21

Ken Murchison wrote:

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.

Agreed.

That is my recollection as well.

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

No, this wasn't discussed in San Diego.
I think we've discussed this before and decided that ereject will replace non-US-ASCII with an implementation defined US-ASCII string. I would rather not revisit this decision.

for ereject and that it can't issue MDNs?

I think we hummed for "ereject can use protocol level refusal or generate MDN". It sounds like we don't have a consensus on the "or generate MDN" part yet.

The former seems too strict given that a future SMTP extension might allow non-US-ASCII text in responses.

Agreed.

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.

Indeed, this is how I was thinking about the two actions.