On 11/30/06 6:08 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
Does anyone think I'm trying to keep the standard from allowing Chris to
do what he wants with Sun's implementation? If so that HAS BEEN A
MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT I'VE PROPOSED.
I don't think there's any misunderstanding....
Ned, you inappropriately referred to the last published draft, which is
NOT the same as the proposal I made in the email that started this
thread. See your misunderstanding? It makes the points you made
inapplicable.
On 12/1/06 3:36 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
It's not only that. IF Sun or any SIEVE implementors were to start
using a new, different recommended behavior for REJECT on the basis of
a new standard, then when server software gets upgraded to one of
these new server implementations, users with existing SIEVE scripts
would suddenly start seeing new behavior. That's not very good for
users.
That's not what I proposed: The proposal in my email that started this
thread DOES NOT REQUIRE that the configured behavior of reject change.
Is any part of that not clear now?
If a server gets upgraded there's nothing in my proposal that prevents
the upgrade script from setting the _____ as part of the upgrade, while
new installations, on the other hand, default to the better behaviour.
IMO, the harm to users of blowback is greater than the harm Lisa
mentions. Do you disagree, Lisa?