Re: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject approved by IESG

Hi Matthew,

We can definitely get the author information fixed before publication,
at least during AUTH48 if not sooner by request to the RFC Editor.

I didn't respond to your earlier objections because I couldn't figure
out where the substantive changes were, and even so, none had any WG
consensus. I apologize for basically ignoring you, but the WG has strong
consensus on this document as it now stands and really, really wants to
see it published.

Best,
Aaron


On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 01:28 -0800, Matthew Elvey wrote:
> On 11/19/08 11:07 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> > Lisa Dusseault wrote (Re: Fwd: SIEVE bounced SIEVE bounce message):
> >
> > > Oh the irony.  I send a message saying that the SIEVE document 
> > > refuse-reject has been approved, and it gets bounced by Elvey's SIEVE 
> > > filter.
> > Yes. Messages from Cyrus, Aaron and myself all bounced as well.
> Sorry about that.  Perhaps you were using the 
> sieve3(_at_)matthew(_dot_)elvey(_dot_)com 
> address that I retired long ago.  I did not want that address in 
> refuse-reject either.  I asked that it be replaced with 
> matthew(_at_)elvey(_dot_)(_dot_)(_dot_)(_dot_), to no avail.  Too late, no?  
> I wrote to the list on 
> 9/10/08: "I believe ... issues that have been raised need to be 
> addressed; a WGLC and LC are also needed. " I don't see that -09 had 
> either a WGLC or LC.
>
> -09 is a big improvement on RFC 3028, but fails to address some of the 
> issues I raised on on 9/10/08, primarily the inappropriateness of 
> allowing a system "B" to be considered compliant with "ereject".
>
> (BTW, the MAY in
> "   However implementations MAY refuse delivery over SMTP/LMTP 
> protocol    " (line 318)
> should be a SHOULD; I don't see what holds it back. The last-minute 
> removals of the word "purported" also makes the spec misleading; they 
> hide a hurdle that contributed to its deficiencies.)
>
> I am still strongly opposed to to a situation where, if a system implementing 
> the spec works on a store-and-forward basis, it can claim to support ereject, 
> as defined in an RFC.
>
> We've got Cyrus Daboo, TS Glassy, John Kleinsin, and Kristin Hubner 
> using a ridiculous straw man argument as the excuse to push through this 
> flawed I-D to RFC status, instead of making the small limited changes I 
> have pushed for.  (Perhaps some of them led the others to be confused.)  
> Specifically, they act as if I haven't made it extremely clear, on 
> multiple occasions, that I know that there are plenty of key use cases 
> where only doing SMTP protocol rejection is not possible.   I had, but 
> nonetheless, claiming that I hadn't and that they existed was the 
> primary straw man argument used.  I'm the primary author of the first 
> half dozen versions of this draft, all of which, as I'd recently pointed 
> out, went into great detail to make exceptions (including MDNs and DSNs) 
> for the key use cases where SMTP protocol rejection is not possible.  So 
> once again, for the record, I'd like to point out that I never made 
> light of those exceptions.
> Amazingly, that straw man argument was in response to my post in which I 
> said, among other things:
>
> Ned acts like [I'm] saying that I'm against allowing Japanese users to fall
> back to out-of-transaction rejects when non-ASCII reject strings need to
> be used.  I'm not.  Look at the drafts I wrote!  They don't do that!
>
>
>
>
> I'm not upset that people disagree with me.  I'd be fine if the 
> consensus in the WG (despite my opposition) was that the spam the draft 
> unnecessarily permits wasn't important, and if the IESG voted to make it 
> an RFC on that basis, following IETF procedure.  I would be unhappy, 
> sure. but I wouldn't be pissed off.
> But violating process, avoiding debates on the merits, and resorting to 
> straw man attacks?  That was not cool, and not professional.
> Ned's nasty insults and smearing of me was particularly galling - Ned 
> provided no specifics, but claimed I made many inaccurate references to 
> him and Sun.  I on the other hand, responded to Ned's (and others') 
> debate points. I pointed out where Ned had misread what I'd said, or I 
> had misspoken, or was wrong, or disagreed.  If we don't have debates on 
> the merits, and honest dialogue, but instead give political speeches, or 
> worse, attack each other, (both of which remind me of typical US 
> political debates) we end up with lousy specifications.
>
> Well, I guess on the bright side, at least the debate is over.  The 
> horse is dead, the sausage stuffed, as far as I'm concerned.  DNR, I say.
> > > Lisa
> > >
> > > Begin forwarded message:
> > >
> > > > *From: *Mail Sieve Subsystem <postmaster(_at_)messagingengine(_dot_)com 
> > > > <mailto:postmaster(_at_)messagingengine(_dot_)com>>
> > > > *Date: *November 19, 2008 12:07:21 PM CST
> > > > *To: *<lisa(_at_)osafoundation(_dot_)org 
> > > > <mailto:lisa(_at_)osafoundation(_dot_)org>>
> > > > *Subject: **Automatically rejected mail*
> > > >
> > > > Your message was automatically rejected by Sieve, a mail
> > > > filtering language.
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > There are no remaining DISCUSS positions on this document, and it  
> > > > looks like it has enough ballot positions filled to approve. There 
> > > > are  no RFC Editor notes.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Lisa