[Top] [All Lists]

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

2008-11-21 13:23:01

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.


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 

Yes. Messages from Cyrus, Aaron and myself all bounced as well.
Sorry about that.  Perhaps you were using the 
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.


Begin forwarded message:

*From: *Mail Sieve Subsystem <postmaster(_at_)messagingengine(_dot_)com 
*Date: *November 19, 2008 12:07:21 PM CST
*To: *<lisa(_at_)osafoundation(_dot_)org 
*Subject: **Automatically rejected mail*

Your message was automatically rejected by Sieve, a mail
filtering language.


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.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>