The focus of this particular diagram has occasionally caused a bit of
confusion a number of times, so it is probably worth repeating the following
point. The second paragraph explains its constraints:
This section describes each functional component for Internet Mail, and the
standards-based protocols that are associated with their operation.
Having a diagram that uses terminology that is ot tied to specific
standards-based protocols would be entirely reasonable, for a different type
of document or a diagram with a different goal.
But a major goal for this diagram is to show where the Internet Mail standards
fit into the Internet Mail service.
d/
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Hector Santos writes:
- This was mentioned the last time I commented on your paper, SIEVE,
although comes with a RFC, it is not the standard "mail filtering
agent" everyone uses. The suggestion was to make the concept generic,
like everything else in your (crowded) diagram. SIEVE is not generic.
It is a UNIQUE, CRYPTIC language. I suggested MFA for Mail Filtering
Agent and use SIEVE parenthetically.
What does generic mean in this context?
There seems to be at least six completely unrelated, compatible
implementations of sieve from different vendors. That's more than enough
to demonstrate interoperability in the eyes of the IETF and five more
than any other mail filtering specification I've heard of, so it would
seem reasonable to describe it as a standard mail filtering agent, or
even _the_ standard mail filtering agent. IMHO.
Arnt
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net