Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-crocker-email-arch-06.txt]

Dave Crocker wrote:

> > > What about SpamAssassin filters, and Sendmail Milters that do filtering?
> > They are not doing the same job as Sieve.
>
> Folks,
>
> Even if they were, I need to repeat that this diagram and this section 
> of the document are explicitly constrained to formal standards.
> It's not that discussing the broader range of pragmatic and equivalent 
> mechanisms isn't also valuable. It is that it makes the task too large 
> for this document.
> In fact, I think it opens the door to a book, not an IETF architecture 
> document...
Dave,

I think overall you are right, but out of everything in there, SIEVE is 
the ODD BALL and the way you have outlined, not only does it not apply 
to many systems, it just isn't used as a formal standard like everything 
else that is on that diagram.
In other words, there is no getting away from RFC-x822 and RFC-x821 and 
the pretty much standard macrocosms, MSA, MUA, MTA, etc are just that, 
acronym's that can fit most, if not, all email implementation models. 
The flow is pretty generic.
But then all out of sudden, you throw in a concept like SIEVE that just 
doesn't fit with everything else there in a general, generic way.  Not 
everyone uses SIEVE and more importantly similar MFA engines would not 
necessarily be where you have SIEVE embedded in the diagram.
It is only there because the author(s) and their peers are familiar with 
with this, which is fine, but many systems are not familiar with the 
same thing.
You ask for technical opinion, you got it.

Thanks for allowing me to express my opinion.

--
HLS