[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: List of open issues with Sieve reject draft (draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-02.txt)
On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 17:56 +0100, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> 1). “SHOULD be incompatible with other actions” is too strong, for
> example there are good reasons to do reject+fileinto.
please state such reasons. I do not think it is a good idea to allow
the recipient system to outright lie about the success of the delivery.
> I tend to agree that reject should be made compatible with other actions
> (except for vacation), so I would like to at least downgrade SHOULD to MAY.
> 2). Non ASCII text in rejection string - should it cause creation of
> DSN/MDN, runtime error or stripping of non-ASCII content?
> Should we add a tagged argument to control this?
> Or maybe we need another capability to enable UTF-8 clean rejection?
that capability needs to be added to SMTP, right?
> I am leaning toward having an extra capability to enable UTF-8 rejection
> text over SMTP/LMTP protocol.
fine with me. I don't think Sieve needs to address this point
normatively. the implementation can do its best within the limits of
the current standards.
> 3). Arnt has requested to allow for reject+redirect to be treated as
> just reject. I am not sure I like that. Opinions?
I don't like it either. silently ignoring actions is bad.