[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [sieve] Duplicate test

2013-01-20 16:33:42
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.


Perhaps I should mention these considerations more explicitly in the draft?

Yes, I think that's a good idea.

sieve mailing list

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