On 23/12/2011 15:53, Barry Leiba wrote:
The latter part of this requirement is obviously explicitly met in Section
2.1. However, I miss an explicit statement about whether or not the new
"convert" action cancels the implicit keep. Although it should be quite
obvious and the examples provide various hints in the correct direction, I
think an explicit sentence is in order.
A fair suggestion. I will extend the last paragraph of section 2.1
when we go into AUTH48 (or Pete can put in an RFC Editor note now):
OLD
Because the implicit keep (see Section 2.10.2 of [RFC5228]), if it is
in effect, acts on the final state of the message, all conversions
are performed before any implicit keep.
NEW
Because the implicit keep (see Section 2.10.2 of [RFC5228]), if it is
in effect, acts on the final state of the message, all conversions
are performed before any implicit keep. The "convert" actions
themselves have no effect on the implicit keep status.
+1.
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve