Re: Standard to selectively disable rules in sieve script?

[Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Patrick,

Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:

> * Nigel Swinson <Nigel.Swinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>  
>
> > > for the case of temporarily disabling a rule,  I think the most obvious
> > > method is a simple
> > >
> > >   if false { }
> > >
> > > around the block.  that construct can hardly be used for anything else.
> > > using comments is bad, since comments should be truly freeform and
> > > without meaning.
> > >      
> > Agreed, and this is actually what I chose to do with our implementation.  It
> > has the added advantage of still doing compilation/syntax checking on the
> > disabled rule, whereas if it was just commented out it'll all be ignored...
> >    
> It seems that there's an agreement on temporarily disabling a rule.
> People should use:
>
>        if false { }
>
>
> I am fairly new to this list and not accustomed with its procedures. What
> would I have to do to propose this agreement to become a standard?  
You need to write a short IETF draft on this and then get it published 
as an RFC.
Contact me off-list if you need to know more details.