On 1/18/2013 8:22 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
2). I found that "the side effect of the test takes force at the end of
a successful script execution" to be odd/awkward. Maybe we can have an
explicit action? Or maybe leaving this as is is Ok... Need to think a
bit more about that.
I'm not wild about this either, mostly because when you do this as two
steps
there's a window where overlapping script executions can cause a
duplicate to
be missed. Of course locking can be used to prevent this, but given
the scale
we operate at any use of locking has to be carefully considered.
That said, the problem where a script goes wonky and ends up marking
something
as a duplicate is much more severe, so IMO the draft is handling this
the right
way.
tl;dr: Missing a duplicate is preferable to marking a message as a
duplicate
incorrectly.
Exactly.
Perhaps I should mention these considerations more explicitly in the draft?
Regards,
Stephan.
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve