[Top] [All Lists]

Determinging consensus on reject

2006-12-07 08:28:21

Hi folks,
With my chair hat on:

The debate on reject seems to have died down but we need to make progress on this. Here is my reading of the consensus from this discussion:

1) As per discussions during IETF meeting, there is broad consensus for having two commands: "reject" and "ereject".

2) As per list discussions its clear that many implementers need to maintain the current "reject" behavior of allowing MDNs as they are useful in many cases, even though they appear to be harmful wrt spam blowback.

The proposal as defined by my reading of the consensus then is as follows:

1) Current "reject" command stays as-is. Server implementations MAY (at their discretion) use a protocol level reject if the reject text is only ASCII, but MUST use MDN when it contains non-ascii.

2) A new "ereject" command is introduced. This MUST do a protocol level reject. The text argument MAY contain non-ASCII text which MUST be suitably downgraded if the protocol level reject can only handle ASCII text.

The spec should also contain guidance on the use of each. In particular: "script generators SHOULD ensure that a rejection action being executed as a result of an anti-spam or anti-virus positive test be done using the ereject action". Also there should be guidance on "upgrading" existing scripts to use ereject instead of reject when appropriate as new sieve implementations are rolled out. There should also be a note about the fact that in some environments (e.g. MUAs) a protocol level reject cannot be done, in which case the ereject action will not be available, and reject will alsways end up doing MDNs, not matter what.

Cyrus Daboo

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Determinging consensus on reject, Cyrus Daboo <=