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 think you meant fileinto, not redirect, but the point is made regardless.
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.
Not sure this matters since we have no intention of implementing convert,
but this is no problem for our implementation. We actually have a couple of
private extensions that work this way already.
Ned
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve