Re: List of open issues with Sieve reject draft (draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-02.txt)

[Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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.
-- 
Kjetil T.