[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject (Sieve Email Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions) to Proposed Standard

2008-11-14 15:55:17

On Nov 14, 2008, at 9:35 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

Hi, Aaron,

(dropping the IETF discussion list from the cc: list)

I think we're good, except on this point:

2.2.  Action reject

The "reject" action cancels the implicit keep and refuses delivery of
a message.  The reason string is a UTF-8 [UTF-8] string specifying
the reason for refusal. Unlike the "ereject" action described above,
this action would always favor preserving the exact text of the
refusal reason.  Typically the "reject" action refuses delivery of a
message by sending back an MDN to the alleged sender (see
Section 2.2.1).  However implementations MAY refuse delivery over
protocol (as detailed in Section 2.5), if and only if all of the

Spencer (clarity): "refuse delivery over protocol" reads roughly to me. is there an adjective for "protocol" that might make this sentence clearer? i'm not sure that "over protocol" is even required - is it? if not, you could just delete the two words.

The phrase "over protocol", or some equivalent, is crucial because the meaning of "refuse" is not as clear as anybody has hoped. I prefer to leave the text as it is.

The great thing about last call review comments is that you can "do the right thing", but ... I may not have been clear, but what I was saying was that I don't know what "refuse delivery over protocol" actually refers to. Is this "refuse delivery over SMTP protocol"? That's all I was asking... I wasn't trying to talk you out of "over protocol", just being a little clearer what you were saying.

Aha, I get what you mean now. Will update the document.

Do the right thing, of course. :-)

Thanks :-)