Hi Alexey,
--On August 19, 2011 12:42:56 PM +0100 Alexey Melnikov
<alexey(_dot_)melnikov(_at_)isode(_dot_)com> wrote:
Now, this doesn't take into account Alexey's comment that he'd like to
see a runtime error when conversion fails, so I want to push on this:
What is the use case? Is it more valuable to the use case for a
failed conversion to crash the script, or for it to just continue?
The sense I have is that it should continue (which is why I wrote the
text above).
"I've asked you and you ignored me" behavior doesn't seem right in Sieve.
I don't think any other extension does that.
If we really want to have both (strict conversion and "best effort"
conversion), then maybe we should have a tagged argument to signal that.
Well the redirect action's failure handling is a bit like that -
implementations get to decide what to do: possibly throw an error, create a
missing mailbox, file to somewhere else.
I am somewhat nervous about the proposal to have a combined action/test
command - I'd like to heard from other implementors as to whether this
represents a significant problem for them or not.
Personally I am OK with taking the redirect approach: error handling is
implementation defined (could be one of raise an error, ignore failure, try
an alternative best effort conversion instead).
--
Cyrus Daboo
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve