[Top] [All Lists]

Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-08.txt

2008-07-15 07:28:08

Alexey Melnikov said:
Should a notification be generated if an Auto-Submitted header field exists (apart from "no")?

Barry commented on this issue:

I still don't see clear support for changing this, and I still worry that it's dangerous. There are certainly use cases for it, but since this is a major way we're suggesting avoidance of notification loops, I think it's a Very Bad Idea.

-08 still has the MUST NOT. I'd strongly prefer to leave it that way.

I tend to agree with Barry. I think the last round of discussion suggested that the WG has no consensus on this issue. So my recommendation is to leave the current text as is and publish the document. *If* there is enough support later for allowing notifications on notifications, the document can be revised(, or a small extension to it can be published). But for now I think it is more important to publish the document.

Despite my strong opinion on this point, I think it's not sufficient to say that if there's not a call to change it, the current "MUST NOT" text stays. At one point we had some level of consensus for the current text, but there's been enough dissent that we explicitly need new consensus.

So, everyone: if you consider yourself an active participant, please send a message to this mailing list within the next, say, week, stating (briefly) your position on this. There's no need for a lot of explanation, because the reasons on both sides are clear.

I'm looking for consensus on one of these:

1. Using Auto-Submitted to avoid loops -- and, therefore, the risk of loops if we send notifications for auto-submitted messages -- is sufficiently important that the current "MUST NOT" text should stay.

2. The use cases for notifications on auto-submitted messages are sufficiently important that the text should be changed. [Please suggest new text, in this case.]

3. "SHOULD NOT" is an acceptable compromise. The current "MUST NOT" should be changed to "SHOULD NOT", with some added text to explain the danger very clearly. [In this case, you can suggest text, or I'll craft it.]

Let's try to get clear consensus on this. I propose that in the event of no clear consensus, we have to go with (3).