Re: some input on sieve-00

[Steve Hole <steve@xxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 27 Apr 1997 20:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Ned Freed 
<Ned.Freed@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > 6. Errors in Processing a Script
> 
> > The stipulation that implementations SHOULD NOT try to recover from a
> > script with errors is a problem for me.  Aborting within an 'if' clause
> > makes sense to me, but to totally stop filtering if any error is encountered
> > is the wrong thing to do.  I would venture a guess that most users would
> > consider this a very bad characteristic of the mechanism.
> 
> The problem with tring to recover is that you cannot be sure of what the user
> meant and you may end up doing the wrong thing. And in this case the wrong
> thing may mean losing mail.
> 
> However, as a purely practical matter I think this is largely a moot point,
> since I expect most implementations to perform syntax checking at the point 
> where rules are added. I know my implementation will do this.

Exactly.   Remember that in the worst case scenario, mail gets delivered 
to the user's inbox.

Cheers.
---  
Steve Hole			VP,  Research and Development  
The Esys Corporation		EMail: steve@xxxxxxx
900 10040 - 104 St.		Phone: 403-424-4922  
Edmonton, AB, Canada		Fax:   403-424-4925  
T5J 0Z6